I try to work one in every deck more or less as a this game has gone on too long let's switch up commanders and get a second game in. I won't necessarily tutor for all pieces as I normally just wait till the board state allows it. But if its turn 20 and I have the tutor to win I might be persuaded
My decks might have combos in them. I have many decks, I avoid open-ended tutors and I have only so much time to play. So it's possible there's a combo within my deck that I have never seen in action, nor will.
But I don't build for combos. I build for snowball synergies, where every card in my deck plays towards the primary plan of the deck. Secondary gameplans are usually in the form of one build-around card that I tutor for (for example: Astral Slide or Sunforger), but I plan for the deck to function without said card.
I don't mind that much if someone else combos out to win, but that's not my slice of tea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
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 have to agree with cryogen on this. I am not a big combo player myself, but I don't think people are bad or wrong for playing combo, even the same tired combos. They are tired because they are effective, after all. I have my preferences, but I don't expect others to tailor their decks to my liking, so long as people who are giving fair warning when they are playing more competitive decks or when they are bringing some strategies to the table (hard stax, MLD) that a lot of the player base feels don't really fall within the social aspect of the game. I don't ever run my stax deck without asking if people are cool with me playing it, and if they aren't, I play something else.
My reason for posting this thread was to get a sense of where the people on here are in regard to combos, and I find it interesting, but not surprising, that they are all over the place.
I build my decks so that they have multiple ways to close out a game. Sometimes it's beat-down in the red zone, sometimes its a grind, and sometimes its an explosive play such as resolving a combo. One thing that I try to avoid is playing a combo early as I find that unsatisfying.
Even my mid-range angel beatdown deck has an infinite combo as an alternate win condition which doesn't involve attacking.
I tend to include the occasional end the game button/combos into my deck, just as a means to close out stalled games especially when one player has been out for a little while. But I won't tutor for it or play it out in other situations, for me the decks have other win conditions and I enjoy winning through those far more. My playgroups know that these combos are in the deck and will target or stop them when they deem necessary, so they have no problems with them being there but not using them to win all the time probably makes it less of an issue as well.
Well, not using combo, it's the only way I can be satisfied. If I use a combo...tch, over too quickly.
Apologies to Mandy Patinkin.
I have complicated feelings on combo.
On one hand, I find (at least well-known efficient combos) to be a really boring way for a game to end. I think people who are play competitive decks in casual games, especially if they don't make any disclaimer or apology about it, to be in poor taste at a minimum. I think that combos are the easiest way to win at basically every level of deck strength because it reduces the opportunity for your opponents to respond - and the tide of threat and response is a big part of what makes magic great, so limiting that ability, especially in combination with cards like teferi or conqueror's flail, significantly reduces the enjoyment I get out of those games. But it's definitely very strong.
But what's interesting is that, while I think some people gravitate towards combo because they're building too competitively, I find a lot of people include them - or at least claim to include them - for almost anti-competitive reasons. A lot of them are in this thread. Generally the reason is given as something like "I don't tutor/play it early, but if the game is going on too long and it needs to end, then I'll tutor/play it." That is, they presumably have games which they could have won but chose not to, in the name of creating an enjoyable game. Which is kind of fascinating to me, since it's almost treating the game like it's D&D or something - about trying to create an experience first rather than an actual competition. Which I'm sure is how some people see the format, but for me, I like commander because the competition first, which creates an experience that I enjoy. And I hate tabletop RPGs because it feels too much like making your own fun. If I knew how to have fun I'd just be doing that. Games give me a structure that I can understand, and then fun naturally happens while following that structure (if it's a good game).
Personally I almost never feel like the game has gone on too long. I can happily play a game that lasts for hours and hours. But I also generally pack combo-breakers and I can threat-assess like a champ. Which might be why my games always last so long, come to think of it.
Anyway, I basically never pack combos. The vast majority of people I've played commander against - and I realize this is going to sound condescending as hell - aren't really at the same level as I am, in terms of how much time they spend on magic in general or commander in particular, or how well they "get" the game. In limited I have plenty of opponents that are on a similar level, but commander I usually feel like an adult playing against children. I win too many games already. If I played combos I'm pretty sure I'd be completely insufferable.
I'm surprised Commander isn't a lot more pro-combo than it is, at least here. If you play Standard, you're not really playing combo. If a combo deck starts doing well in Modern, Wizards is way more likely to put a stop to it than if a midrange deck does so. This is one of three formats where you can actually play combo, and of the three, the other two being vintage and legacy, this is the only one where you can play off the wall combos. I can see the casual player's argument against Hermit Druid, Ad Nauseam, High Tide, and other very competitive and very early combo win conditions. I don't see the argument against three or four card silliness as an alternative to winning by turning fatties sideways. We have two constructed formats dedicated to turning creatures sideways, and it's all you can do in limited. Commander is all about variety. If someone plops down an Endrek Sahr, Phyrexian Altar, Blood Artist and Endless Cockroaches and goes off on turn six, reshuffle and have at it again.
I like to have an "I win" button to punish certain behaviors. Because conceding to people who just want to mess with you/your group incentivizes them to continue doing so.
Having the combo doesn't mean I have to tutor and cast it as soon as possible tho. You can build competitively and still play casually.
Having the combo doesn't mean I have to tutor and cast it as soon as possible tho. You can build competitively and still play casually.
I've seen this inversion of the EDH mantra a couple times and it really bothers me. It's supposed to be "build casually, play competitively", not the other way around.
Mostly I just don't understand how people could have fun following the inverted mantra. The reason the EDH mantra works is that competition is FUN. Trying your best to win at a game is a pastime that's provided enjoyment for humans since time immemorial. And as long as everyone is playing toned-down decks that don't have easy "I win" buttons, it's a good, satisfying game. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have any fun playing a deck that I knew I could win with, but intentionally held back.
I've used this analogy in the past and I think it's apt - playing a (powerful) combo deck and holding back is like bringing a NASCAR racer to your buddy's homemade go-kart competition and trying to match your speed. It's condescending, it makes the competition feel meaningless, and I don't understand how it could possibly be fun for you. I'd much rather bring the slowest go-kart of the bunch, and have to fight tooth and nail in order to stand half a chance.
Not to say that "playing competitively" means you're acting like it's day 2 of a GP or something. Take-backsies as long as no hidden info from your opponents was revealed, etc. is all fine. I just mean that I'm always trying to find the best play. It still doesn't need to be taken super seriously when all is said and done.
I'm generally a combo player at heart, so most of my decks are about creating a huge mess on the stack that, typically, eventually becomes some sort of loop. But even when I'm playing my non-combo decks, even the deliberately most casual-tier brews, I'll always have at least one "out". Games have to end eventually, and sometimes it has to be my responsibility to "put down" a game that has ground down to a slog for the table. When the game stalls from going too long or a player is allowed to get out of hand with a grindy strategy, having a game-ender lets the pod shuffle up and play another instead of suffering it out or starting to bicker over forfeiting/etc.
TLDR: sometimes you need to be able to say "Alright, this has gone on long enough. Let's play another." without That One Guy insisting they need to see how this plays out.
Well, not using combo, it's the only way I can be satisfied. If I use a combo...tch, over too quickly.
Apologies to Mandy Patinkin.
I have complicated feelings on combo.
On one hand, I find (at least well-known efficient combos) to be a really boring way for a game to end. I think people who are play competitive decks in casual games, especially if they don't make any disclaimer or apology about it, to be in poor taste at a minimum. I think that combos are the easiest way to win at basically every level of deck strength because it reduces the opportunity for your opponents to respond - and the tide of threat and response is a big part of what makes magic great, so limiting that ability, especially in combination with cards like teferi or conqueror's flail, significantly reduces the enjoyment I get out of those games. But it's definitely very strong.
But what's interesting is that, while I think some people gravitate towards combo because they're building too competitively, I find a lot of people include them - or at least claim to include them - for almost anti-competitive reasons. A lot of them are in this thread. Generally the reason is given as something like "I don't tutor/play it early, but if the game is going on too long and it needs to end, then I'll tutor/play it." That is, they presumably have games which they could have won but chose not to, in the name of creating an enjoyable game. Which is kind of fascinating to me, since it's almost treating the game like it's D&D or something - about trying to create an experience first rather than an actual competition. Which I'm sure is how some people see the format, but for me, I like commander because the competition first, which creates an experience that I enjoy. And I hate tabletop RPGs because it feels too much like making your own fun. If I knew how to have fun I'd just be doing that. Games give me a structure that I can understand, and then fun naturally happens while following that structure (if it's a good game).
Personally I almost never feel like the game has gone on too long. I can happily play a game that lasts for hours and hours. But I also generally pack combo-breakers and I can threat-assess like a champ. Which might be why my games always last so long, come to think of it.
Anyway, I basically never pack combos. The vast majority of people I've played commander against - and I realize this is going to sound condescending as hell - aren't really at the same level as I am, in terms of how much time they spend on magic in general or commander in particular, or how well they "get" the game. In limited I have plenty of opponents that are on a similar level, but commander I usually feel like an adult playing against children. I win too many games already. If I played combos I'm pretty sure I'd be completely insufferable.
Emphasis mine. As someone who stated prior in this thread an opinion aligned with the faction you're referencing, I can tell you it isn't for "anti-competitive" reasons, just acknowleding practical realities. I can go play EDH at most twice per week for about 4 hours each time. If one game takes the whole four, or even just three, I get to play that many fewer games in an already limited window.
Furthermore, by reserving combos as a mutually agreed late game tool, it adds a cold war fear to the game that I find intriguing. The land war rages on, but secretly we're all building nukes. It's spicy IMHO.
As others have said, it depends on the definition. Even some of my decks I consider in the Strong but Fair category have certain instawin cards.
Nicol Bolas, the Ravager has Nexus of Fate, which goes infinite with the planeswalker's ult or just with drawing enough cards. I figure that's fine because ulting or drawing your deck ain't easy.
I've seen this inversion of the EDH mantra a couple times and it really bothers me. It's supposed to be "build casually, play competitively", not the other way around.
Mostly I just don't understand how people could have fun following the inverted mantra. The reason the EDH mantra works is that competition is FUN. Trying your best to win at a game is a pastime that's provided enjoyment for humans since time immemorial. And as long as everyone is playing toned-down decks that don't have easy "I win" buttons, it's a good, satisfying game. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have any fun playing a deck that I knew I could win with, but intentionally held back.
I've used this analogy in the past and I think it's apt - playing a (powerful) combo deck and holding back is like bringing a NASCAR racer to your buddy's homemade go-kart competition and trying to match your speed. It's condescending, it makes the competition feel meaningless, and I don't understand how it could possibly be fun for you. I'd much rather bring the slowest go-kart of the bunch, and have to fight tooth and nail in order to stand half a chance.
Not to say that "playing competitively" means you're acting like it's day 2 of a GP or something. Take-backsies as long as no hidden info from your opponents was revealed, etc. is all fine. I just mean that I'm always trying to find the best play. It still doesn't need to be taken super seriously when all is said and done.
It's all a matter of perspective. The most important thing to note about "75% / build competitively, play "casually"" (I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I guess there's some common baseline at least with others with similar mentalities) is that the primary win-con is usually by nature a casual win-con (or at least reasonable in the realm of casual) and the "competitive half" (which amounts to pretty much a couple of insta-win combos and tutors) is an adaptation tool to the competitive side of the LGS's meta. "As long as everyone is playing the same something" is not a luxury the flexible LGS walk-in scene can afford, even with core groups in the LGS tilting towards either side of the meta.
On the "mathematical" surface level, you can say that we're not trying our best based on our decklists solely, but the 75%/inverse mantra in by itself is a social agreement within the LGS/group - we are all aware that we're playing with the primary objective of winning with methods that don't really match cEDH standards and may be higher than the typical casual standard (but can be reasonably stopped in the dimension).
Perhaps the gap between competitive and casual isn't as wide in your meta, but 75% isn't exactly "flip a switch - I'm competitive now" - by the time you analyze that your primary plan isn't going to work, resorting to the "competitive half" is already "fighting tooth and nail to win" against decks of the same or higher caliber. Any less than this baseline, you'll be either conceding or passively doing so by durdling (or worse, kingmaking), in which by itself leaves a bad taste.
To put it bluntly, the "competitive backup plan" is essentially us "conceding" in a twisted, yet gracious way - we admit that we aren't going to win with our preferred way, but at least we aren't to just leave abruptly or go down as puppets or kingmakers (especially considering the politics of multiplayer combined with resources of the game) and we're going to throw what is admittedly "more boring combos" as the last wall for you to overcome. Perhaps to you (and people with the same opinions), a clean concede would be neater and more polite, but from our perspective, denying our opponent the chance to play out their strategies or practically staying there as a goldfish is also disrespectful in its own way.
If I wind up in a more casual game then why would I want to just wreck it by tutoring up a combo and ending the game when I could play a little looser and have a longer and hopefully more enjoyable game? Similarly, if I ever got the opportunity to play a game of pickup ball with Michael Jordan (showing my age because that is the most recent player I know), how would either of us enjoy it if he played like he was on the court still when he could b9ld back and give me a fighting chance when I'm going 100%?
I'm surprised Commander isn't a lot more pro-combo than it is, at least here.
Man, commander is based on many things, 3 of them are these:
1) multiple opponents
2) higher life total
3) possibilities to create interesting board states thanks to the higher life totals
combo ignore all these factor. I wonder why not everyone love them
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
Emphasis mine. As someone who stated prior in this thread an opinion aligned with the faction you're referencing, I can tell you it isn't for "anti-competitive" reasons, just acknowleding practical realities. I can go play EDH at most twice per week for about 4 hours each time. If one game takes the whole four, or even just three, I get to play that many fewer games in an already limited window.
Furthermore, by reserving combos as a mutually agreed late game tool, it adds a cold war fear to the game that I find intriguing. The land war rages on, but secretly we're all building nukes. It's spicy IMHO.
So the winner is the first person to decide the game has gone on too long? Doesn't sound like a very interesting competition. But then I'm not much for spicy food, either.
(granted this is pretty oversimplified since there are such things as answers. But that also sort of negates the whole "this is my one and only plan to end the game when it's gone on too long" plan, if it can be disrupted).
It's all a matter of perspective. The most important thing to note about "75% / build competitively, play "casually"" (I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I guess there's some common baseline at least with others with similar mentalities) is that the primary win-con is usually by nature a casual win-con (or at least reasonable in the realm of casual) and the "competitive half" (which amounts to pretty much a couple of insta-win combos and tutors) is an adaptation tool to the competitive side of the LGS's meta. "As long as everyone is playing the same something" is not a luxury the flexible LGS walk-in scene can afford, even with core groups in the LGS tilting towards either side of the meta.
On the "mathematical" surface level, you can say that we're not trying our best based on our decklists solely, but the 75%/inverse mantra in by itself is a social agreement within the LGS/group - we are all aware that we're playing with the primary objective of winning with methods that don't really match cEDH standards and may be higher than the typical casual standard (but can be reasonably stopped in the dimension).
Perhaps the gap between competitive and casual isn't as wide in your meta, but 75% isn't exactly "flip a switch - I'm competitive now" - by the time you analyze that your primary plan isn't going to work, resorting to the "competitive half" is already "fighting tooth and nail to win" against decks of the same or higher caliber. Any less than this baseline, you'll be either conceding or passively doing so by durdling (or worse, kingmaking), in which by itself leaves a bad taste.
To put it bluntly, the "competitive backup plan" is essentially us "conceding" in a twisted, yet gracious way - we admit that we aren't going to win with our preferred way, but at least we aren't to just leave abruptly or go down as puppets or kingmakers (especially considering the politics of multiplayer combined with resources of the game) and we're going to throw what is admittedly "more boring combos" as the last wall for you to overcome. Perhaps to you (and people with the same opinions), a clean concede would be neater and more polite, but from our perspective, denying our opponent the chance to play out their strategies or practically staying there as a goldfish is also disrespectful in its own way.
So (1) bring multiple decks and (2) communicate before you sit down.
If I found out I'd won a game because someone else was sitting at the table with a win in hand and didn't play it, I'd feel like my win was tainted and I'd never want to play with them again.
If I wind up in a more casual game then why would I want to just wreck it by tutoring up a combo and ending the game when I could play a little looser and have a longer and hopefully more enjoyable game? Similarly, if I ever got the opportunity to play a game of pickup ball with Michael Jordan (showing my age because that is the most recent player I know), how would either of us enjoy it if he played like he was on the court still when he could b9ld back and give me a fighting chance when I'm going 100%?
Same as above. Bring multiple decks. Communicate. Or just bring a sideboard to take in/out the combo stuff.
MJ isn't a good comparison because that's an innate ability. You aren't intrinsically bound to your deck. If MJ had a magic feather that made him good, and without it he'd be roughly equivalent to your skill, wouldn't you rather he just ditched the magic feather and tried his heart out, rather than kept it but played like crap on purpose?
I don't run infinite combos in any of my decks except Wort, the Raidmother, but even then the combos are fairly tame and people know that they are coming (I specifically tell them, or they've played with me enough times to know). My usual MO is to go out of my way to eschew infinite combos; I don't run any Curiosity effects in my Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind deck, I don't run Earthcraft or Phyrexian Altar (or about a dozen other cards) in my Ghave, Guru of Spores deck, and I go out of my my to never run Tooth and Nail in any of my decks.
For me, EDH is much more fun when I can assemble a deck that takes a bunch of cards that would otherwise never see the light of day again (because they aren't playable in Modern, Legacy, or Vintage) or I would have never had the chance to play in the same deck (because they never overlapped in Standard, Extended, or Modern), put them together in some synergistic way, and then ride that synergy to victory while seeing if I can stop my opponents from doing the same.
It would feel like such a bummer to find out after winning a game that everyone was holding back their I win buttons because they had deemed the game still had to go on longer and got blown out.
That feels like a very weird way to play a game, I expect to play the pile of cards I constructed to the fullest and assume that much from everyone else around the table, hedging just feels so strange.
It is actually kinda why I am more and more liking playing in games where the limiters (not always full cEDH but closer than what is generally described here) are removed because then I can and do expect anything and everyone is playing aware of what is possible and to the fullest.
I run infinite combos as a win con. I see many combos that dont end the game. Yes my playgroup gets annoyed but it is a win con (and not my only one.)
I'm not going to go infinite mana and do nothing with it. I will pump it into a fireball or comet storm.
I will make 10 billion squirrels and then attack (maybe a turn later because reasons (no haste)
I also play infinite combos to steal win when i may have been behind all game. The might have just burned the last few counterspells they had. I am open to finish the game.
They are mad all the work they did is nullified, BUT IT IS A GAME
I think that if you are sandbagging a game winning combo to draw out the game it would be better for you to win the game and switch to a more appropriate deck.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
2 card combos, especially those enabled by the commander (but tutoring the pieces or by being one of the two cards), are really boring. But if my Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Pitiless Plunderer + Sun Titan + Gift of Immortality infinite life combo is something my opponents have a problem with I think it is laughable. It is 4 pieces for infinite life. Easy to disrupt. Are you cutting Sun Titan if this is your deck? Even though it is fits Ayli so well?
Do people have problems with my using Karametra's Acolyte, Temur Sabertooth, 6 devotion worth of green permanents, a haste enabler, and a Soul of the Harvest to draw my deck and find a way to win the game? If this was your deck, what would you cut?
When you have 4-5 card combos, they come up so rarely... like most of the time you were going to win the game anyway.
And they are disruptable.
This is not like people who play Food Chain combos where you really need enchantment removal or you're dead.
I think that if you are sandbagging a game winning combo to draw out the game it would be better for you to win the game and switch to a more appropriate deck.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
2 card combos, especially those enabled by the commander (but tutoring the pieces or by being one of the two cards), are really boring. But if my Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Pitiless Plunderer + Sun Titan + Gift of Immortality infinite life combo is something my opponents have a problem with I think it is laughable. It is 4 pieces for infinite life. Easy to disrupt. Are you cutting Sun Titan if this is your deck? Even though it is fits Ayli so well?
Do people have problems with my using Karametra's Acolyte, Temur Sabertooth, 6 devotion worth of green permanents, a haste enabler, and a Soul of the Harvest to draw my deck and find a way to win the game? If this was your deck, what would you cut?
When you have 4-5 card combos, they come up so rarely... like most of the time you were going to win the game anyway.
And they are disruptable.
This is not like people who play Food Chain combos where you really need enchantment removal or you're dead.
The sort of combos you are talking about, I think those not just fine, but actively cool. I mean, if you can win with Gift of Immortality, cool. Beats the hell out of Mike/Trike. The sorts of combos you cite are almost unavoidable in decks built with a fair bit of synergy, and they pretty much have to develop over the course of the game, vs. being tutored for game after game. Much different from Food Chain combo or things like that.
I think that if you are sandbagging a game winning combo to draw out the game it would be better for you to win the game and switch to a more appropriate deck.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
2 card combos, especially those enabled by the commander (but tutoring the pieces or by being one of the two cards), are really boring. But if my Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Pitiless Plunderer + Sun Titan + Gift of Immortality infinite life combo is something my opponents have a problem with I think it is laughable. It is 4 pieces for infinite life. Easy to disrupt. Are you cutting Sun Titan if this is your deck? Even though it is fits Ayli so well?
Do people have problems with my using Karametra's Acolyte, Temur Sabertooth, 6 devotion worth of green permanents, a haste enabler, and a Soul of the Harvest to draw my deck and find a way to win the game? If this was your deck, what would you cut?
When you have 4-5 card combos, they come up so rarely... like most of the time you were going to win the game anyway.
And they are disruptable.
This is not like people who play Food Chain combos where you really need enchantment removal or you're dead.
The sort of combos you are talking about, I think those not just fine, but actively cool. I mean, if you can win with Gift of Immortality, cool. Beats the hell out of Mike/Trike. The sorts of combos you cite are almost unavoidable in decks built with a fair bit of synergy, and they pretty much have to develop over the course of the game, vs. being tutored for game after game. Much different from Food Chain combo or things like that.
I have food chained all of my animated lands to fiery confluence all other lands after casting Natural Affinity and a bunch of other stuff like Vitalize to make the non creature mana I would need post lands.
There be weird combos with all cards tutors involved or not.
I have food chained all of my animated lands to fiery confluence all other lands after casting Natural Affinity and a bunch of other stuff like Vitalize to make the non creature mana I would need post lands.
There be weird combos with all cards tutors involved or not.
Yeah, but that's not what people are really talking about when they use the shorthand "Food Chain combo."
The weird combos are cool. The easy, familiar ones, more boring. Your Food Chain one, that would be interesting to see. Food Chain and Prossh? Yawn.
I think Triskellion is largely a terrible card, but if someone found a cool combo with it that wasn't the same Mike/Trike snoozefest or something more or less equivalent to that, that could be cool.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But I don't build for combos. I build for snowball synergies, where every card in my deck plays towards the primary plan of the deck. Secondary gameplans are usually in the form of one build-around card that I tutor for (for example: Astral Slide or Sunforger), but I plan for the deck to function without said card.
I don't mind that much if someone else combos out to win, but that's not my slice of tea.
I have to agree with cryogen on this. I am not a big combo player myself, but I don't think people are bad or wrong for playing combo, even the same tired combos. They are tired because they are effective, after all. I have my preferences, but I don't expect others to tailor their decks to my liking, so long as people who are giving fair warning when they are playing more competitive decks or when they are bringing some strategies to the table (hard stax, MLD) that a lot of the player base feels don't really fall within the social aspect of the game. I don't ever run my stax deck without asking if people are cool with me playing it, and if they aren't, I play something else.
My reason for posting this thread was to get a sense of where the people on here are in regard to combos, and I find it interesting, but not surprising, that they are all over the place.
Even my mid-range angel beatdown deck has an infinite combo as an alternate win condition which doesn't involve attacking.
Apologies to Mandy Patinkin.
I have complicated feelings on combo.
On one hand, I find (at least well-known efficient combos) to be a really boring way for a game to end. I think people who are play competitive decks in casual games, especially if they don't make any disclaimer or apology about it, to be in poor taste at a minimum. I think that combos are the easiest way to win at basically every level of deck strength because it reduces the opportunity for your opponents to respond - and the tide of threat and response is a big part of what makes magic great, so limiting that ability, especially in combination with cards like teferi or conqueror's flail, significantly reduces the enjoyment I get out of those games. But it's definitely very strong.
But what's interesting is that, while I think some people gravitate towards combo because they're building too competitively, I find a lot of people include them - or at least claim to include them - for almost anti-competitive reasons. A lot of them are in this thread. Generally the reason is given as something like "I don't tutor/play it early, but if the game is going on too long and it needs to end, then I'll tutor/play it." That is, they presumably have games which they could have won but chose not to, in the name of creating an enjoyable game. Which is kind of fascinating to me, since it's almost treating the game like it's D&D or something - about trying to create an experience first rather than an actual competition. Which I'm sure is how some people see the format, but for me, I like commander because the competition first, which creates an experience that I enjoy. And I hate tabletop RPGs because it feels too much like making your own fun. If I knew how to have fun I'd just be doing that. Games give me a structure that I can understand, and then fun naturally happens while following that structure (if it's a good game).
Personally I almost never feel like the game has gone on too long. I can happily play a game that lasts for hours and hours. But I also generally pack combo-breakers and I can threat-assess like a champ. Which might be why my games always last so long, come to think of it.
Anyway, I basically never pack combos. The vast majority of people I've played commander against - and I realize this is going to sound condescending as hell - aren't really at the same level as I am, in terms of how much time they spend on magic in general or commander in particular, or how well they "get" the game. In limited I have plenty of opponents that are on a similar level, but commander I usually feel like an adult playing against children. I win too many games already. If I played combos I'm pretty sure I'd be completely insufferable.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Having the combo doesn't mean I have to tutor and cast it as soon as possible tho. You can build competitively and still play casually.
R Legacy Burn R
R Modern Burn R
R Standard Burn R
Mostly I just don't understand how people could have fun following the inverted mantra. The reason the EDH mantra works is that competition is FUN. Trying your best to win at a game is a pastime that's provided enjoyment for humans since time immemorial. And as long as everyone is playing toned-down decks that don't have easy "I win" buttons, it's a good, satisfying game. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have any fun playing a deck that I knew I could win with, but intentionally held back.
I've used this analogy in the past and I think it's apt - playing a (powerful) combo deck and holding back is like bringing a NASCAR racer to your buddy's homemade go-kart competition and trying to match your speed. It's condescending, it makes the competition feel meaningless, and I don't understand how it could possibly be fun for you. I'd much rather bring the slowest go-kart of the bunch, and have to fight tooth and nail in order to stand half a chance.
Not to say that "playing competitively" means you're acting like it's day 2 of a GP or something. Take-backsies as long as no hidden info from your opponents was revealed, etc. is all fine. I just mean that I'm always trying to find the best play. It still doesn't need to be taken super seriously when all is said and done.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
TLDR: sometimes you need to be able to say "Alright, this has gone on long enough. Let's play another." without That One Guy insisting they need to see how this plays out.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
I really don't like when a deck is so focused in a specific and boring combo like Kiki Jiki + Zealous Conscripts or the Mikaeus, the Unhallowed + Triskelion.
Emphasis mine. As someone who stated prior in this thread an opinion aligned with the faction you're referencing, I can tell you it isn't for "anti-competitive" reasons, just acknowleding practical realities. I can go play EDH at most twice per week for about 4 hours each time. If one game takes the whole four, or even just three, I get to play that many fewer games in an already limited window.
Furthermore, by reserving combos as a mutually agreed late game tool, it adds a cold war fear to the game that I find intriguing. The land war rages on, but secretly we're all building nukes. It's spicy IMHO.
Nicol Bolas, the Ravager has Nexus of Fate, which goes infinite with the planeswalker's ult or just with drawing enough cards. I figure that's fine because ulting or drawing your deck ain't easy.
Yasova Dragonclaw has Malignus plus power doubling plus Chandra's Ignition, which is usually an instawin.
Scion of the Ur-Dragon has Primal Surge, which also typically ends the game on the spot.
Selenia, Dark Angel has Repay in Kind & Near-Death Experience.
It's all a matter of perspective. The most important thing to note about "75% / build competitively, play "casually"" (I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I guess there's some common baseline at least with others with similar mentalities) is that the primary win-con is usually by nature a casual win-con (or at least reasonable in the realm of casual) and the "competitive half" (which amounts to pretty much a couple of insta-win combos and tutors) is an adaptation tool to the competitive side of the LGS's meta. "As long as everyone is playing the same something" is not a luxury the flexible LGS walk-in scene can afford, even with core groups in the LGS tilting towards either side of the meta.
On the "mathematical" surface level, you can say that we're not trying our best based on our decklists solely, but the 75%/inverse mantra in by itself is a social agreement within the LGS/group - we are all aware that we're playing with the primary objective of winning with methods that don't really match cEDH standards and may be higher than the typical casual standard (but can be reasonably stopped in the dimension).
Perhaps the gap between competitive and casual isn't as wide in your meta, but 75% isn't exactly "flip a switch - I'm competitive now" - by the time you analyze that your primary plan isn't going to work, resorting to the "competitive half" is already "fighting tooth and nail to win" against decks of the same or higher caliber. Any less than this baseline, you'll be either conceding or passively doing so by durdling (or worse, kingmaking), in which by itself leaves a bad taste.
To put it bluntly, the "competitive backup plan" is essentially us "conceding" in a twisted, yet gracious way - we admit that we aren't going to win with our preferred way, but at least we aren't to just leave abruptly or go down as puppets or kingmakers (especially considering the politics of multiplayer combined with resources of the game) and we're going to throw what is admittedly "more boring combos" as the last wall for you to overcome. Perhaps to you (and people with the same opinions), a clean concede would be neater and more polite, but from our perspective, denying our opponent the chance to play out their strategies or practically staying there as a goldfish is also disrespectful in its own way.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Man, commander is based on many things, 3 of them are these:
1) multiple opponents
2) higher life total
3) possibilities to create interesting board states thanks to the higher life totals
combo ignore all these factor. I wonder why not everyone love them
(granted this is pretty oversimplified since there are such things as answers. But that also sort of negates the whole "this is my one and only plan to end the game when it's gone on too long" plan, if it can be disrupted). So (1) bring multiple decks and (2) communicate before you sit down.
If I found out I'd won a game because someone else was sitting at the table with a win in hand and didn't play it, I'd feel like my win was tainted and I'd never want to play with them again. Same as above. Bring multiple decks. Communicate. Or just bring a sideboard to take in/out the combo stuff.
MJ isn't a good comparison because that's an innate ability. You aren't intrinsically bound to your deck. If MJ had a magic feather that made him good, and without it he'd be roughly equivalent to your skill, wouldn't you rather he just ditched the magic feather and tried his heart out, rather than kept it but played like crap on purpose?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
For me, EDH is much more fun when I can assemble a deck that takes a bunch of cards that would otherwise never see the light of day again (because they aren't playable in Modern, Legacy, or Vintage) or I would have never had the chance to play in the same deck (because they never overlapped in Standard, Extended, or Modern), put them together in some synergistic way, and then ride that synergy to victory while seeing if I can stop my opponents from doing the same.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
That feels like a very weird way to play a game, I expect to play the pile of cards I constructed to the fullest and assume that much from everyone else around the table, hedging just feels so strange.
It is actually kinda why I am more and more liking playing in games where the limiters (not always full cEDH but closer than what is generally described here) are removed because then I can and do expect anything and everyone is playing aware of what is possible and to the fullest.
I'm not going to go infinite mana and do nothing with it. I will pump it into a fireball or comet storm.
I will make 10 billion squirrels and then attack (maybe a turn later because reasons (no haste)
I also play infinite combos to steal win when i may have been behind all game. The might have just burned the last few counterspells they had. I am open to finish the game.
They are mad all the work they did is nullified, BUT IT IS A GAME
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
2 card combos, especially those enabled by the commander (but tutoring the pieces or by being one of the two cards), are really boring. But if my Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Pitiless Plunderer + Sun Titan + Gift of Immortality infinite life combo is something my opponents have a problem with I think it is laughable. It is 4 pieces for infinite life. Easy to disrupt. Are you cutting Sun Titan if this is your deck? Even though it is fits Ayli so well?
Do people have problems with my using Karametra's Acolyte, Temur Sabertooth, 6 devotion worth of green permanents, a haste enabler, and a Soul of the Harvest to draw my deck and find a way to win the game? If this was your deck, what would you cut?
When you have 4-5 card combos, they come up so rarely... like most of the time you were going to win the game anyway.
And they are disruptable.
This is not like people who play Food Chain combos where you really need enchantment removal or you're dead.
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
The sort of combos you are talking about, I think those not just fine, but actively cool. I mean, if you can win with Gift of Immortality, cool. Beats the hell out of Mike/Trike. The sorts of combos you cite are almost unavoidable in decks built with a fair bit of synergy, and they pretty much have to develop over the course of the game, vs. being tutored for game after game. Much different from Food Chain combo or things like that.
I have food chained all of my animated lands to fiery confluence all other lands after casting Natural Affinity and a bunch of other stuff like Vitalize to make the non creature mana I would need post lands.
There be weird combos with all cards tutors involved or not.
Yeah, but that's not what people are really talking about when they use the shorthand "Food Chain combo."
The weird combos are cool. The easy, familiar ones, more boring. Your Food Chain one, that would be interesting to see. Food Chain and Prossh? Yawn.
I think Triskellion is largely a terrible card, but if someone found a cool combo with it that wasn't the same Mike/Trike snoozefest or something more or less equivalent to that, that could be cool.