Today's selection in the Random Card of the Day thread is Spawning Pit. It's an okay card, and unsurprisingly, since it works so well for such things, comments noted how easily it goes infinite with Doubling Season and Ashnod's Altar and/or various other cards. As far as ways to go infinite go, this one isn't particularly scary, since it involves at least three cards, one of which is CMC 5, but it's still the sort of thing I tend to avoid building into my decks because I don't find infinite combos very interesting, especially if they are of the sort one has seen a gazillion times before if you've played any length of time (which is very much the case with the noted Spawning Pit combos). That got me wondering, though... How many people do build these things into their decks outside cEDH, which is by its nature mostly about combo-wombo wins?
Myself, I never play certain cards together. Mike/Trike, Kiki/Conscripts, things like that, I avoid. I play Kiki in several decks, but not along with cards that go infinite with Kiki. I also don't do things like Godo + Helm of the Host. Sometimes I figure out I have built in infinite combos unintentionally, and when I discover that, I usually remove one or more of the infini-combo cards from the deck. I suspect I might have one or more unintentional combos in my Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain deck because it is the sort of artifact-centric deck which easily lends toward them, but if so I haven't stumbled across them so far. There is one exception: I know I do have a few ways to generate infinite creatures and/or mana in my Rhys the Redeemed elf/druid/token swarm deck. It's almost impossible to make a good version of that sort of deck and not have some infinite combos in there, but I have at least eliminated any tutors that would let me assemble the combos.
Enough about me, though. I'd like to know how others feel about this sort of thing outside competitive EDH.
I honestly cannot answer. Insta-win combos requiring 4 or more cards... I have plenty of those. Does that mean I should answer "all the time"?
Two card combos... I can only think of Kikki combos in my Zedruu deck. I can't think of any two card combos in my other 16 decks.
Oh wait, I have some infinite mana combos (Mana reflection + Grim Monolith for example). But infinite mana doesn't do anything by itself. I don't even really have good mana sinks in those decks.
What about Palinchron + lands + Caged Sun? Is this two cards? 9 cards?
If I put 96 counters on Sage of Hours does that mean it is an 'insta-win'? I have never had to play it out, but it is not infinite.
So... if we are including combos that require 4-9 cards, I think I would say that about 60-70% of my decks have "I Win" combos.
If we are talking 2 cards, then I think I only have one deck out of 17.
I also refuse to put infinite combos or insta-win cards in my decks. I have had a couple decks in the past that had some infinite combos due to the cards being highly synergistic to the deck as a whole and they just happened to go infinite with one another. In a couple cases, I did what you did and cut one of the pieces.
It is my least favorite way of winning a game (or losing a game for that matter).
It's very difficult to keep five different players under control with a card pool as open as Commander. Even if you recognize the combo, casting "deal with this or you immediately lose" cards is outright boring. It's not only combo - it's why I don't play Craterhoof Behemoth myself.
I like playing Combos and bizarre card interactions.
Sometimes they are intricate and weird, sometimes they are 2 cards it depends on the deck but they largely influence how I play and build decks.
I tend to stop playing Combos once I find them boring or played out and I move on and find different ones. That tends to change based on the intended power of the deck and what I am playing against.
From my point of view, Magic the Gathering is basically a horribly broken, badly designed fighting game that's still a blast to play at restrained levels like X-Men vs Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat Armageddon. However, when an opponent takes advantage of the broken mechanics these games have to offer it's my fault for even playing the game in the first place so I can't truly be mad.
The rest of my table though can be mad and will just ask the offending gamebreaker to leave us be so yeah none of us in my established group run infinites.
I like playing Combos and bizarre card interactions.
Sometimes they are intricate and weird, sometimes they are 2 cards it depends on the deck but they largely influence how I play and build decks.
I tend to stop playing Combos once I find them boring or played out and I move on and find different ones. That tends to change based on the intended power of the deck and what I am playing against.
I find odd and intricate combos fascinating and often fun. Weird Rube Goldberg kinda combos are one of the coolest things about the game, especially if they depend on a lot of parts that aren't already great on their own and are hard to put together.
I don't generally think of magic games on a scale of good to bad based on how they end though regardless of how they end. I have played some really good games of magic that ended with Kiki combos or Mikeaus combo coming from either side of the table.
I genuinely do not understand the vehemence for combo outside of a deck that is a higher power level playing against decks that can not keep up (which at that point is not the issue of the combo)
Any iterative process to improve a deck’s win rate will eventually get you to a deck that is all about a combo. You could start off with Yennett Sphinx tribal and end up with Doomsday Zur. So unless you are going to take the gloves off, it is hard to play this game on any sustained basis without drawing the line somewhere.
That said, some strategies are impossible to win with unless it’s by some kind of combo. For example if you have an Izzet spellslinger deck, you are just putting everyone through misery if you can only win by Balefire Dragon beats.
I typically like to have a win button in most decks but i try to design it in a way that uses cards that go along with the core strategy. E.g. in ephara I have blasting station to go along with lark and guide.
My inalla deck plays altar and crystal shard to enable various wizard combos, but the deck is about achieving control and then comboing not rushing a combo.
Gitrog has the combo but the cards all go with the deck.
My tuvasa deck is basically it's own combo (bashing for 21) and atraxa is just a bad casual deck.
For me I answered almost always because I do consciously make sure my decks have triumphant ways to win and don't either drag it out unnecessarily or flame out if i can avoid it.
Some strategies really work best with a combo finish and I think that's kinda necessary for the format to not just be about ramping.
I try, as a rule, to avoid combos in decks built to be played socially. Sometimes you can go infinite on accident, but it often requires 4 or more cards and around 12 mana to start it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I don't mind playing infinite combo in a deck, eithe myself or my opponentd, if all pieces are just good cards on their own in the deck and they just happen to combine into something better. What i don't like to play or play against is decks that actively seek out a combo with tutors etc and that's all they do. Because that just feels like you're playing solitaire, or my opponent is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I think decks should be able to end a game at some point and should be able to win without combat if they need to. With that in mind most of my decks have a way to do that. But none of my combos are easy to pull off. I never tutor for them.
All that said I also don't judge any of you for simply disliking or even disallowing combos. To each their own.
I think Combos are like a nice little hollow point in your bandolier for finishing up an otherwise untenable situation. On the other hand, I believe in the exhaustion of my preferred methods before moving into that territory.
In general though, I think one/two maindeck combos is just good form as they constitute a viable plan B with a minimal deck construction cost. Too often I see players complain that their deck has been made 'pointless' and they 'can't win' because their plan A is getting sat on by X stax card, Y strategy, or Z whatever. Devoting 4-6 slots to preventing that scenario is pretty easy.
I try to build one into every deck if possible. I find no enjoyment in the 2+ hour games where someones janky pet tribal is struggling to get through enough combat damage and someone top decks the 5th board wipe that game.
Dualcaster + Twinflame is one of my favorites, but the tried and true Twin/Exarch or Kiki/Conscripts achieve the same effect. If you like your combos, don't let the "lol random horse tribal" guy put you down by saying he finds your deck boring.
I don't really see any problem with having some combos in a non-competative deck. I generally wouldn't build such a deck to be dedicated to assembling said combos (unless it's a pretty convoluted combo), but ultimately, I don't see the difference in a game ending on turn 12 to someone swinging with some random fatties, and a game ending on turn 12 to someone swinging with infinite Zealous Conscripts. Especially as there are plenty of non-infinite ways to completely swing a game.
That said, I often won't run cards that do nothing but combo. But if there are cards that are at least decent in the deck on their own, but go infinite with 1 or 2 other cards that also meet that criteria, then I'll happily put them in, and if I'm in a position to go infinite, I'll do so.
I voted rarely, because I'm not going to avoid combos where the individual pieces belong in the deck (for example my Karador deck has Reveillark and Karmic Guide). I'm also not against building combo decks but they tend to get dismantled once they successfully combo off.
I also find people who do use them to be the more immature section of the player base that are desperate to always win, try to insult you for running cards they deem poor (not in a casual funny way) and most likely to throw a tantrum when things aren't going their way.
does lich plus repay in kind work? it's a pretty effective one, but we're playing lich here; it's not exactly a risk-free strategy. But sometimes, when the game's going long, or someone else on the table is deliberately durdling about and making the game state really boring/slow/uninteresting, i'll just hellcarver demon-insidious dreams for that combo and just win the game.
I also have a minimum 3 card combo with teshar, ancestor's apostle in mono white (though there's a lot of redundancy there.
infinite/i win combos aren't a bad thing, i think. some games just need to end.
DISCLAIMER: I would not consider myself competitive. I don't have any demonic tutors or mana drains, my land bases are lucky to have shocks.
My playgroup is my immediate best friends and we have been having an arms race for almost 8 years of combo decks. Who can get wackier, who can get faster, etc. Almost every deck I own has combos as a way to not only add a sense of eventuality but also because that's how we play. It's also hard to just not run cards that combo when synergistic strategies are so good. My ghave deck wants ashnod's altar, it also wants doubling season, should I take one out because the 3 combo? I have a sunspeaker deck with an artifact package (darksteel plate, lightning greaves, sword of the animist, etc.) and therefor tutors (Godo, stoneforge mystic, etc.) Helm of the Host is a good card, a fun card, and also a combo with Godo. Together they can make red white viable for cheaper, but are also good on their own and would probably both end up in the deck regardless of if I intended for the combo.
I have no idea how many times my friends and I go, 'Hmmmm, lets just have some fun with powerful and valueful cards this time! OOPS! nim deathmantle goes infinite withSOMANYTHINGS!"
But that's okay! We love combo, and are aware of our power levels and explosive wins. We agree that combos are fun for us. We each like counting mana, doing the math, going "What do I tutor for right now that will let me win?" Sometimes we miss grindy large board games with Sheoldred, whispering one and Vigor, and we can always play that way when we miss it.
At this point, we are adults and can afford several decks, so we have our meta of combo-y fun, but also decks for others time when we have larger groups of people over and no one wants to shuffle, take 5 30-minute turns just to lose we one of us tutors for peregrine drake. It is frustrating when my friend turn 2's a flashhulk sequence, but other than that I like the balance.
It depends on the deck build - how confident am I that the deck's primary win-condition(s) (yes sometimes they have several) can fully execute their job. If I'm confident they can finish it by themselves, I'm less inclined to include infinite combos and vice-versa. For example, in Karador I roughly consider Jarad with Lord of Extinction to be my primary finisher despite not being infinite (and easily reduced/countered via gravehate) because generally I see Kokusho doing its midrange grinding effectively enough. Meanwhile, Alesha's equipment smashing / aristocrat drain themes often don't seem to finish their jobs even when combined, so there's like 4 infinite combos of varying levels of assembly difficulty to close the game so I won't be left durdling - but I noted to make sure the individual components of said combos also play into the main themes and I don't really keep them in-hand for the purposes of combo-ing until it's made clear I can't win traditionally, so many of my "combos" invalidate themselves by use through the game.
In decks that rely on combos to finish the job, the active effort is there not to tutor for them for said purpose. I don't shy away from tutors either, because I find them necessary to seek answers so I can actually get the main plan moving and not just roll over to the first competitive move made in some games I encounter and even in more casual games they're used to find my card advantage generators instead to get the plan moving reasonably faster and my reliance of getting combo pieces will more often fall to these generators than tutors. That being said, my primary LGS playgroup is 75% tilting slightly towards the competitive side (but not wholly outright cEDH either), so I don't feel particularly ashamed of Tooth and Nailing into-win in a game where I fought off several other similar attempts earlier along with the knowledge there would be more coming if I don't perform one myself either. In the rarer occasions when I play with the more casual groups (due to timings of when I visit the LGS), I adjust my playing style accordingly.
The RC advocates "Build casually, play competitively", but I find that only works within the same tier of "Built Casually" and in a vacuum of the LGS (even with a core pool of regulars), those don't align as well. There are enough "flexible" cards in "competitive tier" that I personally adopted a "Build nearer-competitively-than-casually, then play according to the group in question" and that reflects in my choice of cards like Tooth and Nail over Protean Hulk (TN can bring about legitimate non-infinite threats in casual settings while generally Hulk feels underwhelming when not combo-ed, but that's based on my own decks only, though the idea I'm trying to convey is still there).
I also find people who do use them to be the more immature section of the player base that are desperate to always win, try to insult you for running cards they deem poor (not in a casual funny way) and most likely to throw a tantrum when things aren't going their way.
I don't think this is accurate at all,and you're making a very broad generalization.
I don't mind infinites. There are some color combinations that even on a casual level have a very difficult time winning without them or even more obnoxious gameplans. There are also some commanders that just combo and nothing else.
I've been on a more casual kick lately, trying not to run combos, trying to go with aggro instead of control, etc. I've come to realize that some commanders just can't win without combo or just ditching the commander's involvement in the gameplan. Emmara, Soul of the Accord is a good example of this. The gameday promo's art was amazing and Emmara's ability is fairly unique with only one other creature having the same [becomes tapped, make a token] ability. Come to find out, she's hot trash if you don't combo. The deck never came close to competing even in the far more casual parts of my lgs.
Trying to get rid of combos outside of competitive commander, even just dissuading combo isn't very good for the game. First, some commanders and color combinations just get knocked out of the running or worse. Second, and here's that worse part, they start running stax or lockdown instead. It's just not a good environment for inventive deck building.
Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder runs a broad swath of infinite combos all centered around Phyrexian Altar, but he's CMC5, his early game is weak, and I opted not to run tutors. It's not the combo that ruins a game, it's how and when you get to it. The point of the combos was to naturally draw into them while playing a combination of Aristocrats/Grave Pact and Big Mana/Exsanguinate strategies.
I also find people who do use them to be the more immature section of the player base that are desperate to always win, try to insult you for running cards they deem poor (not in a casual funny way) and most likely to throw a tantrum when things aren't going their way.
I don't think this is accurate at all,and you're making a very broad generalization.
Didn’t see that comment earlier. I don’t consider running combos as being childish or immature either. I feel sorry that anyone’s had bad experiences with combos, but immature players come in all forms.
Normally, I’m a pretty chill and laid back player. But if I see some idiots who are just trying to curbstomp newer players and all that, I can always whip out my 5c lands hard control deck to just counter everything that they play. That deck makes me the bad guy for sure, and it has no combos in it either.
Having combos just makes games end/have inevitability. I want my games to have a good early, middle and endgame. I don’t want my games to have a good early, mid game, followed by an atrociously long and protracted end game where everyone’s just playing solitaire.
Then again, it could be just me, but I (and the rest of my game group) like having games where there are interesting interactions and a certain amount of tempo. Personally, I also like decks that demand a high level of skill to have success with, but that’s just me.
Myself, I never play certain cards together. Mike/Trike, Kiki/Conscripts, things like that, I avoid. I play Kiki in several decks, but not along with cards that go infinite with Kiki. I also don't do things like Godo + Helm of the Host. Sometimes I figure out I have built in infinite combos unintentionally, and when I discover that, I usually remove one or more of the infini-combo cards from the deck. I suspect I might have one or more unintentional combos in my Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain deck because it is the sort of artifact-centric deck which easily lends toward them, but if so I haven't stumbled across them so far. There is one exception: I know I do have a few ways to generate infinite creatures and/or mana in my Rhys the Redeemed elf/druid/token swarm deck. It's almost impossible to make a good version of that sort of deck and not have some infinite combos in there, but I have at least eliminated any tutors that would let me assemble the combos.
Enough about me, though. I'd like to know how others feel about this sort of thing outside competitive EDH.
Two card combos... I can only think of Kikki combos in my Zedruu deck. I can't think of any two card combos in my other 16 decks.
Oh wait, I have some infinite mana combos (Mana reflection + Grim Monolith for example). But infinite mana doesn't do anything by itself. I don't even really have good mana sinks in those decks.
What about Palinchron + lands + Caged Sun? Is this two cards? 9 cards?
If I put 96 counters on Sage of Hours does that mean it is an 'insta-win'? I have never had to play it out, but it is not infinite.
So... if we are including combos that require 4-9 cards, I think I would say that about 60-70% of my decks have "I Win" combos.
If we are talking 2 cards, then I think I only have one deck out of 17.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
It is my least favorite way of winning a game (or losing a game for that matter).
It's very difficult to keep five different players under control with a card pool as open as Commander. Even if you recognize the combo, casting "deal with this or you immediately lose" cards is outright boring. It's not only combo - it's why I don't play Craterhoof Behemoth myself.
Sometimes they are intricate and weird, sometimes they are 2 cards it depends on the deck but they largely influence how I play and build decks.
I tend to stop playing Combos once I find them boring or played out and I move on and find different ones. That tends to change based on the intended power of the deck and what I am playing against.
The rest of my table though can be mad and will just ask the offending gamebreaker to leave us be so yeah none of us in my established group run infinites.
I find odd and intricate combos fascinating and often fun. Weird Rube Goldberg kinda combos are one of the coolest things about the game, especially if they depend on a lot of parts that aren't already great on their own and are hard to put together.
Mike/Trike or Kiki/Mite? That's snore city.
I genuinely do not understand the vehemence for combo outside of a deck that is a higher power level playing against decks that can not keep up (which at that point is not the issue of the combo)
That said, some strategies are impossible to win with unless it’s by some kind of combo. For example if you have an Izzet spellslinger deck, you are just putting everyone through misery if you can only win by Balefire Dragon beats.
My inalla deck plays altar and crystal shard to enable various wizard combos, but the deck is about achieving control and then comboing not rushing a combo.
Gitrog has the combo but the cards all go with the deck.
My tuvasa deck is basically it's own combo (bashing for 21) and atraxa is just a bad casual deck.
For me I answered almost always because I do consciously make sure my decks have triumphant ways to win and don't either drag it out unnecessarily or flame out if i can avoid it.
Some strategies really work best with a combo finish and I think that's kinda necessary for the format to not just be about ramping.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
All that said I also don't judge any of you for simply disliking or even disallowing combos. To each their own.
In general though, I think one/two maindeck combos is just good form as they constitute a viable plan B with a minimal deck construction cost. Too often I see players complain that their deck has been made 'pointless' and they 'can't win' because their plan A is getting sat on by X stax card, Y strategy, or Z whatever. Devoting 4-6 slots to preventing that scenario is pretty easy.
Dualcaster + Twinflame is one of my favorites, but the tried and true Twin/Exarch or Kiki/Conscripts achieve the same effect. If you like your combos, don't let the "lol random horse tribal" guy put you down by saying he finds your deck boring.
That said, I often won't run cards that do nothing but combo. But if there are cards that are at least decent in the deck on their own, but go infinite with 1 or 2 other cards that also meet that criteria, then I'll happily put them in, and if I'm in a position to go infinite, I'll do so.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I also find people who do use them to be the more immature section of the player base that are desperate to always win, try to insult you for running cards they deem poor (not in a casual funny way) and most likely to throw a tantrum when things aren't going their way.
I also have a minimum 3 card combo with teshar, ancestor's apostle in mono white (though there's a lot of redundancy there.
infinite/i win combos aren't a bad thing, i think. some games just need to end.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
My playgroup is my immediate best friends and we have been having an arms race for almost 8 years of combo decks. Who can get wackier, who can get faster, etc. Almost every deck I own has combos as a way to not only add a sense of eventuality but also because that's how we play. It's also hard to just not run cards that combo when synergistic strategies are so good. My ghave deck wants ashnod's altar, it also wants doubling season, should I take one out because the 3 combo? I have a sunspeaker deck with an artifact package (darksteel plate, lightning greaves, sword of the animist, etc.) and therefor tutors (Godo, stoneforge mystic, etc.) Helm of the Host is a good card, a fun card, and also a combo with Godo. Together they can make red white viable for cheaper, but are also good on their own and would probably both end up in the deck regardless of if I intended for the combo.
I have no idea how many times my friends and I go, 'Hmmmm, lets just have some fun with powerful and valueful cards this time! OOPS! nim deathmantle goes infinite with SO MANY THINGS!"
But that's okay! We love combo, and are aware of our power levels and explosive wins. We agree that combos are fun for us. We each like counting mana, doing the math, going "What do I tutor for right now that will let me win?" Sometimes we miss grindy large board games with Sheoldred, whispering one and Vigor, and we can always play that way when we miss it.
At this point, we are adults and can afford several decks, so we have our meta of combo-y fun, but also decks for others time when we have larger groups of people over and no one wants to shuffle, take 5 30-minute turns just to lose we one of us tutors for peregrine drake. It is frustrating when my friend turn 2's a flash hulk sequence, but other than that I like the balance.
Modern
URGTemur ScapeshiftGRU
EDH
WGKarametra EnchantressGW
UBGSidisi, Brood Tyrant ReanimatorGBU
UBRKess DoomsdayRBU
WBGGhave TokensGBW
WUBZur RebelsBUW
WUBErtai CursesBUW
WRFiresong and Sunspeaker Spell SlingerRW
In decks that rely on combos to finish the job, the active effort is there not to tutor for them for said purpose. I don't shy away from tutors either, because I find them necessary to seek answers so I can actually get the main plan moving and not just roll over to the first competitive move made in some games I encounter and even in more casual games they're used to find my card advantage generators instead to get the plan moving reasonably faster and my reliance of getting combo pieces will more often fall to these generators than tutors. That being said, my primary LGS playgroup is 75% tilting slightly towards the competitive side (but not wholly outright cEDH either), so I don't feel particularly ashamed of Tooth and Nailing into-win in a game where I fought off several other similar attempts earlier along with the knowledge there would be more coming if I don't perform one myself either. In the rarer occasions when I play with the more casual groups (due to timings of when I visit the LGS), I adjust my playing style accordingly.
The RC advocates "Build casually, play competitively", but I find that only works within the same tier of "Built Casually" and in a vacuum of the LGS (even with a core pool of regulars), those don't align as well. There are enough "flexible" cards in "competitive tier" that I personally adopted a "Build nearer-competitively-than-casually, then play according to the group in question" and that reflects in my choice of cards like Tooth and Nail over Protean Hulk (TN can bring about legitimate non-infinite threats in casual settings while generally Hulk feels underwhelming when not combo-ed, but that's based on my own decks only, though the idea I'm trying to convey is still there).
I don't think this is accurate at all,and you're making a very broad generalization.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I've been on a more casual kick lately, trying not to run combos, trying to go with aggro instead of control, etc. I've come to realize that some commanders just can't win without combo or just ditching the commander's involvement in the gameplan. Emmara, Soul of the Accord is a good example of this. The gameday promo's art was amazing and Emmara's ability is fairly unique with only one other creature having the same [becomes tapped, make a token] ability. Come to find out, she's hot trash if you don't combo. The deck never came close to competing even in the far more casual parts of my lgs.
Trying to get rid of combos outside of competitive commander, even just dissuading combo isn't very good for the game. First, some commanders and color combinations just get knocked out of the running or worse. Second, and here's that worse part, they start running stax or lockdown instead. It's just not a good environment for inventive deck building.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Didn’t see that comment earlier. I don’t consider running combos as being childish or immature either. I feel sorry that anyone’s had bad experiences with combos, but immature players come in all forms.
Normally, I’m a pretty chill and laid back player. But if I see some idiots who are just trying to curbstomp newer players and all that, I can always whip out my 5c lands hard control deck to just counter everything that they play. That deck makes me the bad guy for sure, and it has no combos in it either.
Having combos just makes games end/have inevitability. I want my games to have a good early, middle and endgame. I don’t want my games to have a good early, mid game, followed by an atrociously long and protracted end game where everyone’s just playing solitaire.
Then again, it could be just me, but I (and the rest of my game group) like having games where there are interesting interactions and a certain amount of tempo. Personally, I also like decks that demand a high level of skill to have success with, but that’s just me.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom