All I have to say “don’t ban the good/overpowered/degenerate/etc combo pieces because people will just side grade”. So.....for clarity sake we shouldn’t ban a card like Griselbrand or more relevantly Prophet because YawWill/Necro and Seedborn Muse all exist?
Before someone chimes in and says “Grisel/Prophet are both strictly/practical/actually/etc better than the comparison cards”, so we shouldn’t for comparison ban sake fast mana (Crypt/Ring/Vault) because it just means that people will play more signets/other rock. Or instead of playing 1CMC Tutors we will be playing slower 2 or maybe even 3 mana tutors. So on and so forth.
Saying decks will replace x with y, eclipsed the fact that y was worse than x. Further that argument reduces one side to a weak strawman, without tackling the core argument.
Maybe those cards actually being slightly better or otherwise is where their strength comes in. But with regards to game ending combos, what the issue? I find it lack of interaction or worse feeling like a ticking time bomb is on the table.
But something else I personally did aggrieved at, is the various X&Y swords. I am not saying these swords are overpowered or broken. Just I have often more than one game felt they wrecked the game for me personally. Justly or unjustly? That a different debate (And bias aside I will be the first one to say, that to reiterate they are fair and justly wrecked my game due to how I setup my color density and otherwise).
But it leaves me a similar feeling of it’s just a ticking time bomb. And that unless I draw an artifact removal, it’s just to reiterate for me, non-interaction. That is when combos start feeling bad. Which is not something as a community is easily possible to regulate.
What is regulatable are cards roaming free like Sol Ring, Crypt and Vault. The best answer I heard for those is late game bad topdeck, or how due to variance your unlikely to see them in the early 3-4 turns anyways. Permanent fast mana, that is basically unable to be reasonably and efficiently answered, or even answered in a way that doesn’t cause groaning inwardly. But I am going on an complete rant.
Summary;
Bad “Combo” is when you are feeling of powerless or unable to answer. Not always the combo itself. Perfectly fair set of cards like Sword of X&Y are very similar in that regard. It’s important that while it’s unregulatable it’s going happen regardless of circumstance. It should be something discussed by the community.
Secondly, just because someone has or there is available a downgrade sidegrade. Is NOT a good excuse for why a card shouldn’t be on the list. Because if it’s a better then x card why is it better than x card that replacing y card with x card means that no discernible change has happened. I’d ask you rhetorically to replace y with x that case in those decks and see what does (or does not change as the case may be).
All I have to say “don’t ban the good/overpowered/degenerate/etc combo pieces because people will just side grade”. So.....for clarity sake we shouldn’t ban a card like Griselbrand or more relevantly Prophet because YawWill/Necro and Seedborn Muse all exist?
I think the difference is, the next best combo piece is probably almost as good as the next, so 'downgrade' is minimal. The downside of Griz or Seed is the step down is a STEP DOWN. Same goes for mana rocks, ie anything that gives out more than it costs.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I have bias, I hate bans, and I don't play infinite loops. I also cannot read Sheldon's mind, but I don't think the purpose of him bringing up "combo" was not to discuss the strengths/merits of individual combos or combo decks.
If you'll actually start by reading his "thoughts on combos" rather than the posts in this thread, Sheldon discusses how games seem to end too often or unsatisfyingly via an infinite loop. He mentioned how "games have to end" and how many players will pack an infinite to end the game as a back-up plan. However, in the end, that infinite combo that was initially just played as a back-up win-con just becomes the primary win-con because it's effective.
As he mentioned, the discussion shouldn't be framed around "demonizing combo," not whether a combo is "too good" or not, and not what to ban?
Ban all the tutors you want, but 2-card combos are still going to end the game without tutors. Ban one card out of a 2-card combo and players will just sub into a different 2-card combo. The means are different, but the ends are the same. Ban fast mana and people will still lose to 2-card combos. Banning never works and sucks. Save bans for Black Lotus and Balance.
So let's look at one the the problems that Sheldon is supposedly leading to the arms race: "games have to end." Due to the nature of EDH (multiplayer and 40 life), games are most effectively won through infinite loops. If you only address individual combos themselves, it won't change the nature of the format and combo will still always be the most effective win-con.
Now, combo being the leader in efficiently winning is not a bad thing in and of itself. After all, someone always has to be the leader. However, at the moment, combo is so far above everything else. That's why people will put seemingly useless combo pieces into their decks, cards with no synergy beyond facilitating a single 2-card combo (e.g. draft chaff like Village Bell Ringer).
It's not about combo bad unfair magic...attacking good fair magic. It's about how come so many players clutch unto 2-card combos are safety valves.
Players are worried about not being able to close out a long game. That's why they pack in these combos. But the "just-in-case" ends up being "all-the-time." Lowering starting life totals is just the only way to go. Games can end sooner through conventional methods (i.e. damage) and control/combo decks no longer have the insane life buffer.
We can argue how valid their numbers are or how much stock you want to put into their findings, however, it does give us some interesting information to work with.
This thread began with anecdotal evidence from Sheldon's observations and valid concerns, though I feel he also uses the slippery slope logical fallacy. It is my opinion that:
1) His personal observations are not a true representation of the format. We have raw data to look at which contradicts it, and until somebody is able to collect more/better data, this is what we have to go off of.
2) I began playing not long after reading The Aardvark's article "Elder Dragon Highlander: There Can be Only One Hundred" which cause the first big explosion in popularity of the format, as there were no forums and nobody playing (in California where some of the best magic players in the world are from), yet afterwards all of the sops up and down Northern California had play groups and eventually this very sub forum popped up. The second big explosion was obviously in 2011 with the WotC Commander precon decks and the format went international, as non-English speaking countries (like Peru where I live now) first heard of it.
I give all of this back ground to get to my point, which is that in all this time, two card combos have been a thing, yet throughout all of these years, the more things change, the more they stay the same. People were using Tooth and Nail for Kiki Jiki, Mirror Breaker and Sky Hussar before Mikaeus, the Unhallowed had ever been printed. Heck, before mike and Trike, Triskelion used to combo with Mephidross Vampire. Combos are not any easier, faster, or more appealing than they have ever been. So, when Sheldon writes:
The problem comes from the tendency to want to do it a little earlier next time because someone beat you to it. And then earlier after that. Arms races lead to bad places.
This, in turn, forces me to ask what it is that he thinks might be causing a "sudden" (yet immeasurable) push towards combo that we have otherwise yet to see in all of this time? The evidence provided by The Command Zone indicated quite the opposite to be true.
3) Changing life totals will NOT make a meaningful difference in the propensity to use combo decks. Yes, higher life totals leads to longer games, which was part of the point of the format (5 players 200 life means 40 each). Longer games (compared to 60 card duels) is also the appeal of the format. It is why EDH/Commander is home to so many cards which are staples now used to spend years buried inside cardboard long boxes of bulk jank. However, the reason players use combos is not ONLY because of the high life totals. Combos are used in 20 life duels, which is literally the most aggro-friendly environment there could possible be, at least in terms of the life total argument. Players are not choosing to use combo is 20 life 60x4 magic because the life totals are too high. Players have chosen combo in Modern where fast tutors do not exist, and of the best combo decks of their day, only KCI used fast mana rocks like Mox Opal, which is doesn't seem to be in any danger of being placed on the ban list. So, it is not the fast mana or the fast tutors which cause players to chose combo either. Well then, what could it be that causes players to choose combo over other decks, when you don't have fast tutors and don't have/need the fast mana, and you only need to kill one player who is at 20 life? maybe... just maybe, it is because combo is resilient and often times fun to pull off (unless it is eggs. I have found that most eggs players hate eggs).
Furthermore, according to every resources I have found, even 20 life duel Commander still tends to favor combo/control match-ups at the top tables more than anything else. Players tend to play the back-and-forth blue battle to dig through their decks, exchange counterspells and try to power out a combo far more than they are to just beat down an opponent. Now, if you have contradictory evidence, then please be polite and share it rather than be a troll and tell me that I am an idiot for not knowing better. I tried to look up the raw numbers from mtgTop8, Channel Fireball's article on competitive duel commander, and the forums and posting talking about the top decks and that is the conclusion that I have come to.
So how do games of 1v1 EDH play out? What can you expect from a typical game? For the most part, 1v1 games play out like a slug-fest between counterspells and attrition. Both players engage in a tug-of-war of resources, land drops, and value. (snip) Typical control games aside, you can also encounter fast combo decks. Usually, these combo decks will also employ counterspells and removal to back up their combos and engines, so be prepared. You will rarely see many glass cannon combo, and more of a combo/control fusion.
As a result, I yet again see evidence that reducing the life total to 30 and even 20 has no demonstrable change in the play pattern and propensity to choose aggro decks more over combo.
So, in summary:
1) I am dubious of the validity of the claim that combo is a growing trend, nor that if it is, then it will spiral out of control, or even that it if both of the previous two statements are true, that it is bad for the format/game.
2) The proposed solution of reducing life totals has no evidence supporting that it would solve the "problem" of too many combo decks.
3) The proposed solution of banning fast tutors and/or fast mana will also fail to have the desired results, again backed up with evidence from formats where they are banned/not in the card pool to begin with.
4) (Insert witty joke here, everybody laughs)
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
I give all of this back ground to get to my point, which is that in all this time, two card combos have been a thing, yet throughout all of these years, the more things change, the more they stay the same. People were using Tooth and Nail for Kiki Jiki, Mirror Breaker and Sky Hussar before Mikaeus, the Unhallowed had ever been printed. Heck, before mike and Trike, Triskelion used to combo with Mephidross Vampire. Combos are not any easier, faster, or more appealing than they have ever been. So, when Sheldon writes:
The problem comes from the tendency to want to do it a little earlier next time because someone beat you to it. And then earlier after that. Arms races lead to bad places.
This, in turn, forces me to ask what it is that he thinks might be causing a "sudden" (yet immeasurable) push towards combo that we have otherwise yet to see in all of this time? The evidence provided by The Command Zone indicated quite the opposite to be true.
I agree with one part of this which is that people are going to combo, but the bolded part is something I take issue with.
I would argue that combos are both easier and faster than they used to be. Here are a few examples to make my point:
Just a few brief examples but Imperial Recruiter's reprint combined with recruiter of the guard are probably the biggest pieces that make this combo much easier; either recruiter now gets you the entire combo (recruiter -> kiki -> copy recruiter -> gg).
more appealing
This is a very minor point but the Kiki combo at least is quite a bit more appealing because now it doesn't require being in Jeskai. You can even combo in straight up mono red with two cards as of Avacyn Restored, or just UR, or RUG.
Making the potential audience broader is at least slightly increasing the appeal. Somewhat akin to The NBA adding a new team to your town, perhaps?
Again you made some truly excellent points most of which I support. But this same series of arguments can be made with almost every combo pattern. Combos have gotten easier and faster undoubtedly since I started playing and probably more appealing in general since there have been way more combo generals printed.
Combo is WAY, WAYeasier than before. I mean, back in the old days, making infinite mana was the goal of most playable infinite loops...and then you'd do something with the mana (e.g. Stroke of Genius). Now, you don't even need infinite mana often. The combo pieces themselves go infinite and provide the win-con.
Changing life totals is not about stopping 2-card combos or decreasing how often they are played. It will always be the fastest way to win no matter what they change. That's not going to change. Just like how one color has always been better than the others.
I feel like talking about how combo is bad for the format or that combo is growing rampant is a straw man. The point of lowering starting life total is not to hobble combo. It's about giving attacking more value in EDH.
It's important in any game to communicate with people you play with. But how do you communicate with that player when 40 life x 3 or 4 to them feels unsurmountable? And honestly, it is to most players. They're just not going to be able to close out a game.
3 players in a 4-man pod archenemy'd a player for two games after he went infinite in the first. He wondered how come? We said it was because of his infinite loops. He replied, "I have to play infinite loops because everyone attacks me." We explained, "The infinite loops are the only reason we're attacking you first all the time. Unless someone else has something crazy, we're just going to attack you first." Then he said, "I won't win many games without the combo."
There's a reason why infinite loops are clutches/safety-valves. Notice how defensive cards or interaction (e.g.Force of Will, Nature's Claim, etc.) aren't the defacto safety-valves for these types of players.
Thank you, and I agree that your points are valid.
Instead of disagreeing, I would like to point out that that doesn’t change the fact that even back then, people played 5 color good stuff to combo and that when they won with Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker, they were more often likely to use green ramp and Tooth and Nail for 9 mana and one card rather than your example of 10 mana and needing both cards.
Moreover, you raised the bigger and better point about how flexible a combo is in a deck, meaning that instead of being forced to play a specific color combination, even Mono Red could go off with the Goblin Shaman. However, I would also point out that it has not resulted in a surge of mono red decks. Instead, when you search for the top 5 mono red commanders on EDHRec, you get the following:
#1 Krenko, Mob Boss - Where Zealous conscripts doesn't even appear on the page despite having 36% of decks with Kiki-Jiki.
#2 Daretti, Scrap Savant - Where Kiki-Jiki is nowhere to be found.
#3 Neheb, the Eternal - Where Kiki-Jiki is in 10% of decks and the combos again are absent.
#4 Zada, Hedron Grinder - Where Kiki-Jiki does not appear (again).
#5 Purphoros, God of the Forge - Which is the first time the combo really shows up, yet Zealous conscripts makes up less than 30% of lists.
As a result, I am forced to conclude that you are right and it is more viable, the numbers do not support the hypothesis that ease of access has led to tangible action by those playing red. They could, but they are not in any meaningful quantity.
Instead, a search for Kiki-Jiki as a card on EDHRec shows up in only 7% of all possible deck. Not in all registered deck, but in all decks which have redand can use him. Sure, that is not really fair. Edgar Markov COULD use him, but never really would. Instead, let us dig another level deeper and see which decks are using Kiki-Jiki. Of the top 18 commanders in which it is found, #1 is mono red (very interesting) led by Iizuka the Ruthless. this is followed by 4 color partners, a pair of Rakdos decks, then 6 of the next 8 are also mono red (also very interesting), and the rest appear to be 3 or 4 colors. Of those mono red commander, we actually see the ones I covered above which do not appear to be using Kiki-Jiki to combo. Even the number one deck, Iizuka the Ruthless, does not have Zealous Conscripts anywhere to be found. (control + f to search and paste the name). So, again, the data seems to point that the hypothesis has been disproven.
What I was getting at with the quote in bold you referred to is that when you compare the best and most common combos of 2007, 2011, or even 2018, you will find that are just as fast and consistent as they have always been.
Hermit Druid has always been Hermit Druid. Foodchain Prossh and Animar combo have existed since they were spoiled and brewed. Doomsday has gotten some more possible piles, but it has been able to end games since before EDH left the confines of the judges table. Sure, some piles are better, but Dark Ritual or Lion's Eye Diamond into Doomsday ito GG has not changed, no matter which path was taken to get there.
The list of old combos which are all cheap and fast is quite long and there is literally a thread in these forums dedicated to them.
I agree that players have more combos to choose from and can fit certain combos into more decks. However, they seem to be more a matter of flavor anddeck choice rather than power level. I can take infinite turns with my Roon blink deck thanks to Eternal Witness, but I don't. I like to just getEtB value and win that way. Instead, I prefer to take infinite turns with Mizzix because I have mroe fun using Mystic Retrival and Runic Repetition, a pair of obscure cards which see almost no play in the format. Runic Repetition literally shows up in 169 decks accordingto EDH rec. That isa far more enjoyable way to take infinite turns than the old fashioned and well known Eternal Witness route, despite the result being the same.
I kind of do not know how to end this, and really appriciate your feedback. I have to go to lunch and then get t least some work done this afternoon, so I am just going to stop now and just post what I have. Thanks again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
Instead, a search for Kiki-Jiki as a card on EDHRec shows up in only 7% of all possible deck. Not in all registered deck, but in all decks which have redand can use him. Sure, that is not really fair. Edgar Markov COULD use him, but never really would. Instead, let us dig another level deeper and see which decks are using Kiki-Jiki. Of the top 18 commanders in which it is found, #1 is mono red (very interesting) led by Iizuka the Ruthless. this is followed by 4 color partners, a pair of Rakdos decks, then 6 of the next 8 are also mono red (also very interesting), and the rest appear to be 3 or 4 colors. Of those mono red commander, we actually see the ones I covered above which do not appear to be using Kiki-Jiki to combo. Even the number one deck, Iizuka the Ruthless, does not have Zealous Conscripts anywhere to be found. (control + f to search and paste the name). So, again, the data seems to point that the hypothesis has been disproven.
The conscripts argument probably needs to focus on how many mono red decks played Kiki before conscripts and I would bet that it was near zero since there wasn't a combo (and Kiki is pretty good by himself but not amazing).
Adding conscripts enabled both 1) kiki commander to combo easily, 2) other people playing mono red to have a 2-card combo (that otherwise does not really exist in the color).
The old combos actually get better almost every year too. Food chain got eternal scourge allowing it to be played in mono green even (and just making it 1 mana faster and easier to cast). Doomsday just got an upgraded black draw spell that allows simpler doomsday piles in Ransack the lab.
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher is actually a great example of a new-ish card making an old combo easier, faster and more accessible - Food Chain didn't really rise to prominence in casual groups until Prossh came around and made it a one card combo.
Dramatic Scepter is probably the most common combo in CEDH and is only a year or two old. Same with Paradox Engine.
Anyway I generally agree with the idea that people are gonna combo but I do think it is demonstrable that combo is becoming easier and faster.
Beyond all that though, I think the main points to engage in with combo discussions are:
1) is it really more common?
2) is it really a problem if it is?
Some of my discussion here has been assuming it is both of those, but I think those are probably the real basis that have to be dug into before looking at trying to solve a problem that we aren't sure is a real problem
Combo is WAY, WAYeasier than before. I mean, back in the old days, making infinite mana was the goal of most playable infinite loops...and then you'd do something with the mana (e.g. Stroke of Genius). Now, you don't even need infinite mana often. The combo pieces themselves go infinite and provide the win-con.
Not even close to true and you should know better.
Yes, infinite mana has been a go-to for decks, but so has infinite turns, infinite damage, infinite storm, infinite etb/sacrifice, infinite tokens and so on.
Changing life totals is not about stopping 2-card combos or decreasing how often they are played. It will always be the fastest way to win no matter what they change. That's not going to change. Just like how one color has always been better than the others.
Wow, a lot to unpack there, but I will try to be brief. Least important point first, when you said one color is better than the others, yet fail to state which one, I bet that you want us all to assume that it is blue because that is the stereotype. When asked, people overwhelmingly voted blue as the number one color. However, as the numbers played out, it was shown that is not even close to true. When calculated out, White was said to have hurt a deck's chances of winning by -4%, blue sat in the middle at +3% and black was at the top at +5%. While not far and away better, even green outperformed blue. In terms of mono colored decks, black also came in first place and blue surprisingly came in second to last, ahead of only white. When paired, Simic is the first guild to even have blue and shows up as the third place behind Rakdos and Golgari in first place. So, no, there is no one best color, especially if you thought it was blue. If you thought it was black, like I did, well... kind of? But not far and away the best.
Next, you even acknowledge that lowering life totals is not about combos, but making aggro decks more viable, yet fail to miss my entire point that despite aggro being considerably more VIABLE in other formats, they still are not being played at a proportionally higher rate. Even before Commander was a format, people played star magic and casual free for all at 20 life with 60x4 decks and combo/stax decks were still the most effective decks. Asking to lower the starting life total is crying into the wind. It is not going to happen, nor should it happen, and you have failed to give any evidence that it would make any meaningful difference, regardless of your reason to want it.
I feel like talking about how combo is bad for the format or that combo is growing rampant is a straw man. The point of lowering starting life total is not to hobble combo. It's about giving attacking more value in EDH.
It's important in any game to communicate with people you play with. But how do you communicate with that player when 40 life x 3 or 4 to them feels unsurmountable? And honestly, it is to most players. They're just not going to be able to close out a game.
3 players in a 4-man pod archenemy'd a player for two games after he went infinite in the first. He wondered how come? We said it was because of his infinite loops. He replied, "I have to play infinite loops because everyone attacks me." We explained, "The infinite loops are the only reason we're attacking you first all the time. Unless someone else has something crazy, we're just going to attack you first." Then he said, "I won't win many games without the combo."
That anecdotal story just supported my position perfectly and worked to disprove what Sheldon wrote.
Sheldon is/was worried that the response to an infinite combo is that other player will try to go for their combos, and try to go for them as quickly if not faster than the person they lost to. Instead, you and your group teamed up and attacked the combo player. but why would you do that if attacking is not viable? Especially at 40 life? Additionally, you wrote that if another player had tried to do the same, they would be treated the same. These statements further prove that of a 4 person pod, 75% do NOT go for combo and instead choose attacking or some other method. It seems to me that the problem is one player who is too dense to figure out the solution to a problem when you even spell it out for them, yet you seem to feel that this story supports your position rather than destroys it. Had you told a story of how game two resulted in you and your friends racing to try and combo off before the guy who won game one, then you would be evidence of what Sheldon fears. Instead, the "social contract" is working, but one player ails to realize what is happening even when confronted about it. maybe your personal issue could be solved by proposing lending them a deck without a combo, then playing a game where he is not targeted right away by 3 players.
There's a reason why infinite loops are clutches/safety-valves. Notice how defensive cards or interaction (e.g.Force of Will, Nature's Claim, etc.) aren't the defacto safety-valves for these types of players.
The fact that players use too few interactive/reactive/defensive cards to stop combo is a whole other topic and more of a problem than combo is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
3) Changing life totals will NOT make a meaningful difference in the propensity to use combo decks. Yes, higher life totals leads to longer games, which was part of the point of the format (5 players 200 life means 40 each). Longer games (compared to 60 card duels) is also the appeal of the format. It is why EDH/Commander is home to so many cards which are staples now used to spend years buried inside cardboard long boxes of bulk jank. However, the reason players use combos is not ONLY because of the high life totals. Combos are used in 20 life duels, which is literally the most aggro-friendly environment there could possible be, at least in terms of the life total argument. Players are not choosing to use combo is 20 life 60x4 magic because the life totals are too high. Players have chosen combo in Modern where fast tutors do not exist, and of the best combo decks of their day, only KCI used fast mana rocks like Mox Opal, which is doesn't seem to be in any danger of being placed on the ban list. So, it is not the fast mana or the fast tutors which cause players to chose combo either. Well then, what could it be that causes players to choose combo over other decks, when you don't have fast tutors and don't have/need the fast mana, and you only need to kill one player who is at 20 life? maybe... just maybe, it is because combo is resilient and often times fun to pull off (unless it is eggs. I have found that most eggs players hate eggs).
Furthermore, according to every resources I have found, even 20 life duel Commander still tends to favor combo/control match-ups at the top tables more than anything else. Players tend to play the back-and-forth blue battle to dig through their decks, exchange counterspells and try to power out a combo far more than they are to just beat down an opponent. Now, if you have contradictory evidence, then please be polite and share it rather than be a troll and tell me that I am an idiot for not knowing better. I tried to look up the raw numbers from mtgTop8, Channel Fireball's article on competitive duel commander, and the forums and posting talking about the top decks and that is the conclusion that I have come to.
So how do games of 1v1 EDH play out? What can you expect from a typical game? For the most part, 1v1 games play out like a slug-fest between counterspells and attrition. Both players engage in a tug-of-war of resources, land drops, and value. (snip) Typical control games aside, you can also encounter fast combo decks. Usually, these combo decks will also employ counterspells and removal to back up their combos and engines, so be prepared. You will rarely see many glass cannon combo, and more of a combo/control fusion.
As a result, I yet again see evidence that reducing the life total to 30 and even 20 has no demonstrable change in the play pattern and propensity to choose aggro decks more over combo.
This post all in all was great and I enjoyed reading it however, what I would say as someone does desire for a lower life total is the goal is never to make people not want to play Combo decks or do I think that changing this total will stop people from doing said thing I play 90% combo decks, and when I play formats like Canadian Highlander I play about 50/50 combo tempo decks, and I think that is a format which is probably closer to the mark than trying to compared Commander to Modern or some other 60 card 4 of a kind style of game. However maybe this also is not a good comparison because highlander points lists make you make a choice early about whether you want to run the tutors or the fast mana.
There are plenty of aggro decks and tempo decks and control decks and aggro decks and combo decks of all varieties and doesn't seem like the combo decks are always taking the wins.
Lowering the life total especially in a game with 4 people seems so relevant just on how many new considerations people have to make and how long they can afford to wait or not if they are deciding to play a combo deck. I also realize this doesn't really stop someone from just jamming their favorite combo into a control deck already designed to deal with all forms of other decks, but I don't really know a good way to change that math.
40 is just too much of a cushion, and as much I would like to wave a wand and make everyone's decks more interactive I also can not do that.
Regarding the idea that lower life totals will reduce the incidence of combo decks in commander
Are people not worried that those who are using less optimal combos would not simply increase the efficiency of their combos to ensure they can win faster with less life? That seems more likely than them breaking apart their decks. As someone who does not enjoy winning through straight up vanilla creature aggro damage I would certainly do as much as possible before switching away from control and combo. I do think that there is an arms race that occurs as more people add combo to their decks (I have noticed this in my own play groups as well, but I realize this is anecdotal evidence), but as this arms race occurs I find our games have gotten better and lasted longer as more people become familiar with combos and play more interaction and politick better instead of only focusing on their decks.
Another issue I have with lowering the life total is it makes it more likely someone will be knocked out early, which leaves to more feel bad games IMO. I've been in many games where a player focused on one player with aggro until they died, then the games continued on for hours.
In non-cEDH metas the higher life total seems even more important as more players play ramp and higher cmc cards (from my experience). Do others disagree? If so, why do you think so? Whereas in cEDH games I have played there have been many games where players life has stayed around 40 the entire game even when games have lasted hours.
I think the biggest issues are: (1) Talking with people beforehand and deciding on playing at similar power levels or agreeing that a game will be basically archenemy if the power levels are very different. (2) Playing more interaction (Many times I have played versus a Gitrog player with an extremely competitive deck with Dakmor Salvage as a key combo piece for the faster version of their deck. Being mono-blue I was in a bind for faster and permanent answers to this, but research and sticking to it got me to include Extract and more graveyard hate in my deck.) Interactive games make for the best games IMO. I'm continuously amazed how few people play reasonable amounts of interaction or waste interaction on weird things. (3) Being more aware of the threats and potential threats. This takes time to learn I know, but it baffles me how many times you can play versus the same people and yet they still seem unaware of what the key things to target to stop you are. (4) Sharing threat and potential threat information more with other players, including threats you pose if players are at obviously different power levels or newer to the game or you simply like more players to be knowledgeable. Players will only get better at playing more interaction and properly assessing threats if they learn. It is all of our responsibility to help them learn. Help your fellow commander players become better players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
The fact that people have to get taken out quickly and directly and that leads to a length of time that is too long that they are out of the game is a consequence of the higher life totals currently in the format is it not?
(I don't personally have a problem getting knocked out of a game early because in the format as it stands if an aggro person is splitting their time between people it usually goes very poorly for them)
Not even close to true and you should know better.
Yes, infinite mana has been a go-to for decks, but so has infinite turns, infinite damage, infinite storm, infinite etb/sacrifice, infinite tokens and so on.
I'm quite sure that combos have gotten stronger over time. You can insist that they haven't but that's just not the case. I don't understand how you want to frame me as the one who's being disingenuous.
Least important point first, when you said one color is better than the others, yet fail to state which one, I bet that you want us all to assume that it is blue because that is the stereotype.
Blue is the strongest color. I thought it was obvious. It's not a "stereotype" or cliche to believe blue is the strongest color.
You've sourced EDH data a couple of times. I think you should be careful with how you use that imperfect source of information. Black -and guilds/wedges/shards with black- might be more popular but what does that have to do with the strength of the color?
Next, you even acknowledge that lowering life totals is not about combos, but making aggro decks more viable, yet fail to miss my entire point that despite aggro being considerably more VIABLE in other formats, they still are not being played at a proportionally higher rate. Even before Commander was a format, people played star magic and casual free for all at 20 life with 60x4 decks and combo/stax decks were still the most effective decks. Asking to lower the starting life total is crying into the wind. It is not going to happen, nor should it happen, and you have failed to give any evidence that it would make any meaningful difference, regardless of your reason to want it.
Sure, I'll address it now then. First off, your presumption about aggro is incorrect. Aggro is not considerably more viable in other formats. Aggro is not viable in Vintage (besides Shops/Eldrazi, which aren't aggro in a sense but simply just means to abuse Mishra's Workshop and Eye of Ugin). It's also not viable in Legacy. It's also not viable in Modern. You must be delusional if you think that it's the case that aggro decks have fared well in any format other than Standard for a long time. And even then, aggro in Standard has needed considerable amounts of playable red burn to be winning GP's and PT's.
Lowering should happen even if it won't. But I'm okay either way. I'll play EDH still. Attacking lowers life totals. Having to lower someone who starts lower is easier. If that's not a meaningful difference, then...
That anecdotal story just supported my position perfectly and worked to disprove what Sheldon wrote. Sheldon is/was worried that the response to an infinite combo is that other player will try to go for their combos, and try to go for them as quickly if not faster than the person they lost to. Instead, you and your group teamed up and attacked the combo player. but why would you do that if attacking is not viable? Especially at 40 life?
I don't think my anecdote supports you at all. Even if you want to try to turn it against me. I'm sure that more than a reasonable amount of players will view 3 players having to full-on attack one specific player for an entire game...not particularly effective. Sure, we eliminated him but if his deck was more dedicated to combos, we probably wouldn't have be able to.
One of the reasons why we didn't just go for a faster combo instead of attacking him was because we didn't want to switch decks. It wasn't because of what you're saying. Sheldon wasn't talking about the arms race as some instantaneous thing that you are suggesting that it is. But if that game leads someone to go, "Hey next time I'm bringing something else just like that." That's what Sheldon's talking about.
The fact that players use too few interactive/reactive/defensive cards to stop combo is a whole other topic and more of a problem than combo is.
Yeah, I feel that's a problem as well. It's probably the main problem in EDH deck building. And deck building is the most important part of magic.
You can tell someone to play more interaction but I'll tell you exactly what they say, "But that doesn't mean I'm going to draw it." A player doesn't do anything meaningful an entire game, but gets his one impactful play on turn 10 dealt with instantly who then complains about how the control deck counters/removes everything.
Being able to tell when/if it's time to help a player improve at magic and what/how to say/do is important in a community.
We can argue how valid their numbers are or how much stock you want to put into their findings, however, it does give us some interesting information to work with.
To me, the #1 red flag about their data is that they're pulling only from games they can watch. People making videos of commander games are probably savvy enough to realize that combo is not generally compelling television. If "telling a story" is only kind of the goal for regular games of commander, it's EXACTLY the goal when you're putting it on youtube. If the game has gotten so long that it's boring, it's not going to be compelling to watch, nor will it be compelling to deflate the tension with a sudden infinite combo. Who's going to sit down and watch an hour+ game that ends with someone T&Ning kiki+conscripts out of nowhere? Major yawn. So the data they're using is extremely suspect imo.
Also worth mentioning - combat damage from combo is combo, but things like, say, a 30-point rain of hailfire is not considered combo, a secure the wastes into craterhoof is not considered combo, a thrice-copied expropriate is not considered combo. Personally I put those things in roughly the same bucket as combo because they cause roughly the same result - everything that happened before is basically irrelevant and there's very little opportunity to interact with them. That is, of course, a subjective opinion.
So those would be my two main concerns about the data.
Heck, before mike and Trike, Triskelion used to combo with Mephidross Vampire. Combos are not any easier, faster, or more appealing than they have ever been.
Yeah i'm pretty sure it was so easy to combo with Mephidross Vampire since that combo couldn't even hit players
Genuine error or intellectual dishonesty?
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.
The fact that players use too few interactive/reactive/defensive cards to stop combo is a whole other topic and more of a problem than combo is.
I think that part of the problem is that these cards only stop the first player to combo off. The cards mentioned that you seem to be agreeing with are Force of Will and Nature's Claim. These aren't really solutions; in a four player pod, they stop a player. Instead of "Be the first player to combo off", the game becomes "Be the first player to combo off while others have no answers".
I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but I don't think this one really holds water. "Play more answers" isn't going to shut down combo in EDH.
In my experience, the only way that's worked is to play with people who are like-minded about the kinds of games you want to play, and to talk to each other about what we find okay and not okay in the game. If you can't come to an agreement, then it might be wise to not play with that person. I realize this is probably of no help to those who go to their LGS and just throw down with strangers.
Remember that having to deal 60 damage, while better, is still triple the damage you have to deal in 1v1 magic when they are balancing aggro cards.
I remember discussing and arguing in favor of combo bans back when I played 60 card 20 life multiplayer because combo didn't suffer from the same hindrances that aggro and control had to deal with, so life total is not the answer.
Before I quote anybody, allow me a moment to state a few things.
1) Logically, yes, combos are getting faster. When a set comes out, only one of three things is possible: Combos get slower, do not change at all or get faster. Well, that first possibility is absurd. Combos cannot get slower. Even if almost every set did NOTHING to make a combo fast, eventually some sets and cards will.
2) That being said, what are comparing when we say "faster"? I am being honest here, as you can have an opening hand with Gemstone Cavern either of the two spirit guides, Flash and either Protean Hulk or Summoner's Pact to get Hulk and win the game before the first player can draw their first card on their first turn. Effectively a turn zero win. It literally cannot get any faster than that, and that combo has existed since 2007 and how WotC/DCI reverted the errata on Flash to make it work like it was printed again. While highly unlikely to have such a hand and then players just say "Cool story bro, now draw a new 7 so we can play, because the rest of us haven't done anything and are effectively already ready to start game two." you cannot get faster than that, and that was 12 years ago.
What we mean is that other combos have become more consistent and/or require less mana to pull off. However, I contest that the most consistent combos are going off at a rate no different than they have been for years. It is my understanding that the consistent cEDH combos were executed as early as turn three, but more frequently as turn 4. Disruption and interaction would try to prevent them from achieving their goal, but when protected, they won games that early. Traditional/casual EDH games tended to see combos as early as turn 8 to my understanding. Am I wrong in that assessment? Are they now happening at a consistent rate sooner? I do not know. What is your experience?
You can tell someone to play more interaction but I'll tell you exactly what they say, "But that doesn't mean I'm going to draw it." A player doesn't do anything meaningful an entire game, but gets his one impactful play on turn 10 dealt with instantly who then complains about how the control deck counters/removes everything.
Being able to tell when/if it's time to help a player improve at magic and what/how to say/do is important in a community.
I want to start my reply to you at the bottom by saying that just because I disagree with you on serveal points does not mean I have any hard feelings (which can be common online),and any jokes I direct in a reply is more a part of my humor than attacking you directly. Also, I start here at the bottom by complimenting you on a part I agree with most.
So, in response: Haters are gonna hate and complainers are gonna complain. That is the way of human interaction. Rules changes will do NOTHING to stop this kind of behavior.
I do not wish to derail this topic about debating which color is the best. I will state my opinion thusly:
Blue is very powerful.
Blue is also overrated.
I do not feel that any one color is the best. Not black nor blue nor the others.
I feel that white has proven to be the worst of the five, but the other 4 have proven to have strengths in various aspects which make them quite powerful, and history has shown that as well.
When given raw data which suggests that blue might not even be the second best color in Commander, you are quick to dismiss the findings. How scientific of you.
(Y)our presumption about aggro is incorrect. Aggro is not considerably more viable in other formats. Aggro is not viable in Vintage (besides Shops/Eldrazi, which aren't aggro in a sense but simply just means to abuse Mishra's Workshop and Eye of Ugin).
Aggro makes up 57% of the format. This is not just a matter of what shows up at events, but what makes top 8. Moreover, look at the results of the last 10 events and pay attention to which decks are winning and taking top4 as well. It is not like Combo is winning 50% or more of those events, because it isn’t.
Also, it is funny how you say that an aggro deck isn't an aggro deck because... reasons. It is not a combo deck. It is not a control deck. It is not a combo/control deck. It is by all means aggro. Aggro is not exclusively the realm of Savannah Lions and Lightning Bolt. I know that you know that, but I had to be a little hyperbolic for a moment.
It's also not viable in Legacy.
Oops, wrong again. It makes up a solid third of the format. Combo does not makeup the other two thirds. Infact, according to mtgTo8, Legacy is balanced between all three archetypes with a roughly 33% of each.
You must be delusional if you think that it's the case that aggro decks have fared well in any format other than Standard for a long time.
I must be delusional indeed. Except the funny thing about science and facts is that they do not care what you feel or believe. mtgTop8 doesn't have an agenda. They just collect and present the data from real events. The numbers show that you are wrong. Prove otherwise, as the burden of proof is on you. I back my claims up with facts/data. You have not.
And even then, aggro in Standard has needed considerable amounts of playable red burn to be winning GP's and PT's.
I do not pay any attention to standard. I just know that when I watch YouTube videos, content creators like TCGplayer and their series “Pretty Deece” has complained about the Rakdos/Mardu Vehicles from Kaladesh last year and later Goblin Chainwhirler. I really have no idea, but Standard is traditionally known as a healthy format when people are crashing creatures into one another and an unhealthy format with a need for bans when it is not.Also, mtgTop8 has aggro at 64% and combo at 2% right now. Also, if you use the option to look back in time at other standard eras, you will find over the last two years it was in the 72%+ range.
Lowering (the life totals) should happen even if it won't. But I'm okay either way.
I have felt from the start that 40 life is too much for a 4 man pod, but also understood that 40 life was chosen because it was originally a 200 life poor for 5 players, which came to 40 life each and just stuck. I felt back in 2007 that 30 would have been a better balance and that 40 life was too much of a buffer when the game was designed around the math of 20 life. However, the talk of lowing the life total is also something separate which should be held separate from the topic of “Is too much combo bad for commander, and if so, what is the solution?” which is what I interpret this thread to be about. To argue that one wants life reduced to 30 or even eventually 20, it belongs in another thread which I would be happy to join in and comment on. It just is not a solution to the problem being discussed at hand, which I also do not think is a problem in the first place.
I don't think my anecdote supports you at all. Even if you want to try to turn it against me. I'm sure that more than a reasonable amount of players will view 3 players having to full-on attack one specific player for an entire game...not particularly effective.
…and I am sure I will find a lot who agree with me that this is exactly part of the social contract. That Commander is by nature not a competitive format designed to be won at all costs and has prize support and player rankings. Who wins and loses does not really matter. The point of commander is to have fun playing magic, and when someone is causing the rest of the group to have less fun, one of the solutions is to talk to them and punish them IN GAME and make sure they take the hint. They can keep their deck and play it when the time is right. If they feel strongly against you, they can talk to you about what they want out of commander and blah blah blah. Does this really need to be explained? I guess so, though I tire of it quickly.
Sure, we eliminated him but if his deck was more dedicated to combos, we probably wouldn't have be able to.
So, maybe git gud?
More seriously, what do you expect as an answer here? If you want to win more often, then win harder. I already wrote about how one of my favorite decks is Edgar Markov, inspired by ISBPathfiner's list. I also know that stax control decks are another way to kill combo. That is their purpose. When combo is everywhere, play stax. When stax is everywhere, run aggro. Magic is rock-paper-scissors, especially in a healthy format.
One of the reasons why we didn't just go for a faster combo instead of attacking him was because we didn't want to switch decks. It wasn't because of what you're saying. Sheldon wasn't talking about the arms race as some instantaneous thing that you are suggesting that it is. But if that game leads someone to go, "Hey next time I'm bringing something else just like that." That's what Sheldon's talking about.
Oh look, a different interpretation. Well, then mine is wrong and yours is right because mine is mine and yours is yours. It must be nice that this is how the world works.
I understand how a slippery slope works.
I understand the language he was using in his comments.
It did not have to mean that the next game you try to go off faster, which is very much a thing which happens psychologically. Even JLK from the Command Zone talks about how when he sees competitive decks, then he knows it is time to bust how his big guns to play along.
We both know that an arms race does not have to happen at the table between games. Instead, it often happens in the deck building process. However, it can also happen at the table by choosing different decks or by choosing play lines which are more likely to find your combo and execute it.
Going back to Sheldon's comments, which feel like they are being picked through like religious scholars debate the words of Christ or Constitutional lawyers pick through the writings of the founding fathers of the USA...
I'm not talking about competitive decks that want to go infinite as quickly as possible, but even more casual builds--and most of them have an eventual infinite combo of some kind. It's not "go infinite," it's "do some stuff for a while, then go infinite."
This reminds me of the video from Gameplays by Clonehead where one player used Venser, the Sojourner to flicker Eternal Witness to recur Time Warp and take infinite turns. This was a video (no spoilers of which one) had interesting game play and tension which was abruptly ended by an infinite turn combo. It was very anticlimactic and left me with a bitter taste in my mouth as a viewer. Sure, it is part of the game, but a once interactive game suddenly took a left turn and came to an abrupt end. As a spectator, I wanted to se the game continue and play out in the manner with which it was headed.
Yeah i'm pretty sure it was so easy to combo with Mephidross Vampire since that combo couldn't even hit players
Genuine error or intellectual dishonesty?
I just did a simple search of old school Tooth and Nail Combos and that was rated as the most popular back in extended and was very successful. The comments talked about how you essentially resolve Tooth and Nail, get that and win. There are many paths to victory, and in the end, the point still remains that TaN is a one card combo. Resolve TaN and win, or you are doing it wrong. That did not start with Mike and Trike. They just became the most effective combo.
I agree and have taken issue with how valid the data is, but it is also the only data we have for non-competitive commander. Even they acknowledged that in their video.
However, the StarCityGames vs series does have higher end competitive games mixed in with pre-con games. MtgMuddstah also has a fair share of players and decks which do mostl what you said. I love Mizzix of the izmagnus and was watching a video with her asa commander. The Mizzix player went turn one Mystical tutor and did NOT use it to find Intuition to set up a combo, yet the player still won around turn 7 or 8 by casting a nasty spell chain and everyone quit against a giant Epic Experiment which did not even get a chance to resolve. Heck, even The Command Zone's most famous episode of Game Knights is the Shadowborn Apostle game which ended in a critical mass combo with Blood Artist. So, yeah, regardless of the hypothesis of what kinds of games would be featured, those kinds of games are there.
They also said that they were listing how players were knocked out of games, not how games were won. Non-infinite combo was also listed separately from combo.
In the end, I just fundamentally do not see a problem with the format, nor the direction it is headed. I hope that this year's commander 2019 product is a lot better than the trash they gave us last year, especially for the price, as that was the first year I refused to buy even one of the decks offered. I do not see the need to make rules changes or add cards to the banned list, or come out with some PSA to stop going for combos so often.
As I said pages back, "Oh, look... it is this thread again." We have been talking about this since before a Commander sub forum has existed. At least the community had a much needed split between EDH and cEDH. We also had a revolutionary idea of the 75% commander deck back in 2014 which also helped to solidify deck building and the aims of the format. Yet... here we are again. We will likely still be talking about combo in commander 5 years from now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
I mean ok if you count Jund, Death & Taxes and Merfolk as aggro sure then aggro is perfectly viable
I'm not saying aggro isn't viable (I do think it is), but I don't think mtgtop8 is good at classifying decks. It's certainly not "science and facts" that stuff like Jund and D&T are aggro decks, it's an opinion, and in my opinion a wrong one
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UG Arixmethes Combo UGR Wanderer UGB Tasigur Control URB Jeleva Storm RW Gisela Control
I agree that 30 life (or starting life total) can be an entirely separate discussion apart from combo being so strong.
edhREC is quite an imperfect source of data. We don't need data to know that Blue is best. It's cute to suggest another color is better. But Blue not even being the 2nd best color...yeah, sure. Blue can be overrated and the best at the same time.
Protean Hulk was printed in Dissension but was been banned for a while. So it's disingenuous to suggest that it's been around the entire time since 2006.
You point to the data and want to be "scientific." I'm not going to move goalposts, Humans is an aggro deck and it has done its fair share of winning. Having 12 free City of Brass and impactful additions from each and every set will do that for you. Well, you only present a limited glance of the data (mtgtop8 or tcdecks.net).
Sure, take a cursory glance of the data and "aggro" shows at a decent rate. But any serious look into the data shows otherwise. Is a "fish" deck really aggro when it's only 5 creatures are Snapcaster, Tasigur, Yixlid Jailer, and 2x Deathrite? In Modern, I would not consider Izzet Phoenix "aggro."
The way they categorize decks will never be perfect, but a look at the actual decklists will show that attacking for damage just does not win games.
C'mon...optimal play or deck building is not enough to close the gap between combo and aggro. You telling someone to "git gud" is essentially telling them to play Edgar or Edric to close the gap or play combo. Being "gud" at combo sure is easier when you have 40 life.
You can look at EDH through a rock-paper-scissors lens, but I don't think EDH resembles that. That's a framework for looking at competitive formats, and like you said, EDH isn't a competitive format. EDH isn't about archetypes so much as it's about what decks try to do. It's not aggro-control-combo. But in EDH it's voltron, tribal, infect, +1/+1 counters, pillowfort, group slug, stax, draw-go, food chain, flash, eggs, T&N, group-hug, artifacts-matters, lands-matter, Urza themed, all white-bordered, etc.
I don't view combos being around as a problem. I view the chasm between combo and attacking for damage as the problem. It's impossible to outrace combo as the format stands.
1) Take my like/+1/Thumbs up or whatever.
2) I gave the hulk combo as an EXAMPLE of how combos can be turn 0, which proves that they cannot get faster than that, but they can get more consistent. The fact that Hulk Flash was banned in EDH for a long time is irrelevant to the existence of such a combo. I was simply proving my point that eventually a combo can and will reach the critical mass of winning before player one can even draw a card to begin the game.
3) As I wrote in the comment, "git gud" is the internet joke reply when somebody says it is impossible or unlikely to do something which can in fact be done if you really wanted to.
-------------------
I don't know. My perception of life and gaming might just be different. In my time involved in my hobbies, I am proud to say that when I really put my mind to something, I accomplish my goals and do not believe in "can't". If you want something bad enough, then make it happen.
You might not like the solutions or methods. Maybe you find that you do not want it bad enough to change it. Maybe you learn something new and realize it does not need changing, but rather that you were the one who needed to change. Such is the process of life.
I have come to terms with the state of Commander, my favorite format, and quite enjoy it. There are things about it which I think could be better, and some of he ways I implement that is by cultivating my play group.
--------------
I hope everyone reading this has a great and peaceful weekend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
To put the 'data' coming out of that Command Zone video in perspective since it keeps coming up:
They are at something like a 2-3 out of 10 on the power-level scale, and most of the games they pulled from are in the same ballpark. They also have a demonstrated bias against hard combo, control decks, and blue in general, preferring soft combos that simply produce an overwhelming but not insurmountable board-state (instead of immediately ending the game). This is absolutely understandable, given that the way they choose to play results in more dramatic and entertaining gameplay videos.
Their data points are not entirely useless, but they're definitely not indicative of the format as a whole. Not by a long shot.
That said, I wouldn't take anything Sheldon says about the format too seriously either: as people frequently point out, he speaks like someone who lives in a bubble of exceptionally low-powered friends-only games where everyone just plays big dudes and turns them sideways, which is only one way to play the game. His rhetoric is dangerous for you if you like to play high-powered, heavy-interaction games, or if you like to play pick-up games with randoms, but at the end of the day his opinions are just opinions, not gospel.
The reality is that Magic is a game where the goal is to win, and EDH is a format therein where you're given a different set of tools and hurdles to work with, but it is still fundamentally a game of Magic. The goal is -always- to try to win, whether you're also taking into account other potential goals or not (flavor, doing something funny/cool, etc.) If you're not trying to win at all, you're not really playing the game. It's like that one guy who plays Kirby in Smash Bros. just to eat people and jump off the stage. It's funny once or twice, but that person doesn't get invited back if that's all they do.
Combo is simply the most efficient way to put a game away, and it always will be unless the banned list becomes gigantic. In order to level the playing field (even a little) lowering starting life totals wouldn't be a bad idea. It would also help if newer players weren't so interaction-averse, packing more answers instead of more fatties, but that's impossible to police. Combo would still be king, but things might be a little closer if you can actually race.
cEDH player checking in with some of my thoughts, though it sounds like we're all at least mostly in agreement.
Firstly, combos are easier, faster, more available, and more resilient nowadays. That's just going to happen as you print more cards. But would I say combo is more prevalent? No. I don't think so at all. If people are going down the combo route now, they would have done so before. Arms race was happening in my playgroup in 2011, it's the natural progression of things. Why is Sheldon talking about it now? Because he's starting to actually play EDH with people outside his niche and realizing that a large percentage of people don't play the game the way he does. Immediately after, he started the Commander Advisory Group as a way to combat being so out of the loop.
So how do we take combo down a peg?
The life total should not change, but even if it did, that won't stop combo; Ring/Crypt should be banned but that won't stop combo;
I don't personally condone banning any tutors, but even if some were, that won't stop combo; and
I actually agree with MRHBlue that there are too many combos of comparable power to warrant banning any of them.
Not only is there no way to stop combo from being the best way to kill a table, but arms race is inevitable (barring a discussion about power level that brings everyone to absolute agreement, something I consider almost impossible considering most people want different things out of this game).
And to derail some more: blue is the strongest color, followed by green and a very close black, then white, then a distant red (however for mono color decks, white is the worst)
Contrary opinion here... but... Do we NEED to take combo down a peg?
I say this as a non-combo, non-CEDH, player. I get that combo is getting stronger, but this discussion is generally focused on the non-CEDH side of things, and combo has always been powerful there, but under-represented. Generally and by-in-large because Combo is simply not the type of game most non-CEDH players wish to play.
So... If it's already been strong, but non-CEDH chooses not to play it, does it really matter to us that it gets stronger?
If anything, banning certain pieces could send the wrong message of "These were the culprits, but other combo is clearly OK because we haven't banned it" instead of sending the message of "Play games that your playgroup will enjoy, no matter what that type of game might be?"
Before someone chimes in and says “Grisel/Prophet are both strictly/practical/actually/etc better than the comparison cards”, so we shouldn’t for comparison ban sake fast mana (Crypt/Ring/Vault) because it just means that people will play more signets/other rock. Or instead of playing 1CMC Tutors we will be playing slower 2 or maybe even 3 mana tutors. So on and so forth.
Saying decks will replace x with y, eclipsed the fact that y was worse than x. Further that argument reduces one side to a weak strawman, without tackling the core argument.
Maybe those cards actually being slightly better or otherwise is where their strength comes in. But with regards to game ending combos, what the issue? I find it lack of interaction or worse feeling like a ticking time bomb is on the table.
But something else I personally did aggrieved at, is the various X&Y swords. I am not saying these swords are overpowered or broken. Just I have often more than one game felt they wrecked the game for me personally. Justly or unjustly? That a different debate (And bias aside I will be the first one to say, that to reiterate they are fair and justly wrecked my game due to how I setup my color density and otherwise).
But it leaves me a similar feeling of it’s just a ticking time bomb. And that unless I draw an artifact removal, it’s just to reiterate for me, non-interaction. That is when combos start feeling bad. Which is not something as a community is easily possible to regulate.
What is regulatable are cards roaming free like Sol Ring, Crypt and Vault. The best answer I heard for those is late game bad topdeck, or how due to variance your unlikely to see them in the early 3-4 turns anyways. Permanent fast mana, that is basically unable to be reasonably and efficiently answered, or even answered in a way that doesn’t cause groaning inwardly. But I am going on an complete rant.
Summary;
Bad “Combo” is when you are feeling of powerless or unable to answer. Not always the combo itself. Perfectly fair set of cards like Sword of X&Y are very similar in that regard. It’s important that while it’s unregulatable it’s going happen regardless of circumstance. It should be something discussed by the community.
Secondly, just because someone has or there is available a downgrade sidegrade. Is NOT a good excuse for why a card shouldn’t be on the list. Because if it’s a better then x card why is it better than x card that replacing y card with x card means that no discernible change has happened. I’d ask you rhetorically to replace y with x that case in those decks and see what does (or does not change as the case may be).
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
If you'll actually start by reading his "thoughts on combos" rather than the posts in this thread, Sheldon discusses how games seem to end too often or unsatisfyingly via an infinite loop. He mentioned how "games have to end" and how many players will pack an infinite to end the game as a back-up plan. However, in the end, that infinite combo that was initially just played as a back-up win-con just becomes the primary win-con because it's effective.
As he mentioned, the discussion shouldn't be framed around "demonizing combo," not whether a combo is "too good" or not, and not what to ban?
Ban all the tutors you want, but 2-card combos are still going to end the game without tutors. Ban one card out of a 2-card combo and players will just sub into a different 2-card combo. The means are different, but the ends are the same. Ban fast mana and people will still lose to 2-card combos. Banning never works and sucks. Save bans for Black Lotus and Balance.
So let's look at one the the problems that Sheldon is supposedly leading to the arms race: "games have to end." Due to the nature of EDH (multiplayer and 40 life), games are most effectively won through infinite loops. If you only address individual combos themselves, it won't change the nature of the format and combo will still always be the most effective win-con.
Now, combo being the leader in efficiently winning is not a bad thing in and of itself. After all, someone always has to be the leader. However, at the moment, combo is so far above everything else. That's why people will put seemingly useless combo pieces into their decks, cards with no synergy beyond facilitating a single 2-card combo (e.g. draft chaff like Village Bell Ringer).
It's not about combo bad unfair magic...attacking good fair magic. It's about how come so many players clutch unto 2-card combos are safety valves.
Players are worried about not being able to close out a long game. That's why they pack in these combos. But the "just-in-case" ends up being "all-the-time." Lowering starting life totals is just the only way to go. Games can end sooner through conventional methods (i.e. damage) and control/combo decks no longer have the insane life buffer.
We can argue how valid their numbers are or how much stock you want to put into their findings, however, it does give us some interesting information to work with.
This thread began with anecdotal evidence from Sheldon's observations and valid concerns, though I feel he also uses the slippery slope logical fallacy. It is my opinion that:
1) His personal observations are not a true representation of the format. We have raw data to look at which contradicts it, and until somebody is able to collect more/better data, this is what we have to go off of.
2) I began playing not long after reading The Aardvark's article "Elder Dragon Highlander: There Can be Only One Hundred" which cause the first big explosion in popularity of the format, as there were no forums and nobody playing (in California where some of the best magic players in the world are from), yet afterwards all of the sops up and down Northern California had play groups and eventually this very sub forum popped up. The second big explosion was obviously in 2011 with the WotC Commander precon decks and the format went international, as non-English speaking countries (like Peru where I live now) first heard of it.
I give all of this back ground to get to my point, which is that in all this time, two card combos have been a thing, yet throughout all of these years, the more things change, the more they stay the same. People were using Tooth and Nail for Kiki Jiki, Mirror Breaker and Sky Hussar before Mikaeus, the Unhallowed had ever been printed. Heck, before mike and Trike, Triskelion used to combo with Mephidross Vampire. Combos are not any easier, faster, or more appealing than they have ever been. So, when Sheldon writes:
This, in turn, forces me to ask what it is that he thinks might be causing a "sudden" (yet immeasurable) push towards combo that we have otherwise yet to see in all of this time? The evidence provided by The Command Zone indicated quite the opposite to be true.
3) Changing life totals will NOT make a meaningful difference in the propensity to use combo decks. Yes, higher life totals leads to longer games, which was part of the point of the format (5 players 200 life means 40 each). Longer games (compared to 60 card duels) is also the appeal of the format. It is why EDH/Commander is home to so many cards which are staples now used to spend years buried inside cardboard long boxes of bulk jank. However, the reason players use combos is not ONLY because of the high life totals. Combos are used in 20 life duels, which is literally the most aggro-friendly environment there could possible be, at least in terms of the life total argument. Players are not choosing to use combo is 20 life 60x4 magic because the life totals are too high. Players have chosen combo in Modern where fast tutors do not exist, and of the best combo decks of their day, only KCI used fast mana rocks like Mox Opal, which is doesn't seem to be in any danger of being placed on the ban list. So, it is not the fast mana or the fast tutors which cause players to chose combo either. Well then, what could it be that causes players to choose combo over other decks, when you don't have fast tutors and don't have/need the fast mana, and you only need to kill one player who is at 20 life? maybe... just maybe, it is because combo is resilient and often times fun to pull off (unless it is eggs. I have found that most eggs players hate eggs).
Furthermore, according to every resources I have found, even 20 life duel Commander still tends to favor combo/control match-ups at the top tables more than anything else. Players tend to play the back-and-forth blue battle to dig through their decks, exchange counterspells and try to power out a combo far more than they are to just beat down an opponent. Now, if you have contradictory evidence, then please be polite and share it rather than be a troll and tell me that I am an idiot for not knowing better. I tried to look up the raw numbers from mtgTop8, Channel Fireball's article on competitive duel commander, and the forums and posting talking about the top decks and that is the conclusion that I have come to.
As a result, I yet again see evidence that reducing the life total to 30 and even 20 has no demonstrable change in the play pattern and propensity to choose aggro decks more over combo.
========================================================
So, in summary:
1) I am dubious of the validity of the claim that combo is a growing trend, nor that if it is, then it will spiral out of control, or even that it if both of the previous two statements are true, that it is bad for the format/game.
2) The proposed solution of reducing life totals has no evidence supporting that it would solve the "problem" of too many combo decks.
3) The proposed solution of banning fast tutors and/or fast mana will also fail to have the desired results, again backed up with evidence from formats where they are banned/not in the card pool to begin with.
4) (Insert witty joke here, everybody laughs)
Great post and one I largely agree with, so please don't let my one quibble take too much away from that
You said:
I agree with one part of this which is that people are going to combo, but the bolded part is something I take issue with.
I would argue that combos are both easier and faster than they used to be. Here are a few examples to make my point:
faster
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker - formerly combo'd with Sky Hussar. This put you in 3 colors and required 10 mana. Now you can combo with:
And that's not counting the newish 3-card combos that are fairly efficient using dryad arbor.
So, at least one combo is much faster (8 mana being a lot less than 10).
easier
Using the same combo we can find that this combo is also now much easier (and more accessible)--
Just a few brief examples but Imperial Recruiter's reprint combined with recruiter of the guard are probably the biggest pieces that make this combo much easier; either recruiter now gets you the entire combo (recruiter -> kiki -> copy recruiter -> gg).
more appealing
This is a very minor point but the Kiki combo at least is quite a bit more appealing because now it doesn't require being in Jeskai. You can even combo in straight up mono red with two cards as of Avacyn Restored, or just UR, or RUG.
Making the potential audience broader is at least slightly increasing the appeal. Somewhat akin to The NBA adding a new team to your town, perhaps?
---------------------------------------------------------
Again you made some truly excellent points most of which I support. But this same series of arguments can be made with almost every combo pattern. Combos have gotten easier and faster undoubtedly since I started playing and probably more appealing in general since there have been way more combo generals printed.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Changing life totals is not about stopping 2-card combos or decreasing how often they are played. It will always be the fastest way to win no matter what they change. That's not going to change. Just like how one color has always been better than the others.
I feel like talking about how combo is bad for the format or that combo is growing rampant is a straw man. The point of lowering starting life total is not to hobble combo. It's about giving attacking more value in EDH.
It's important in any game to communicate with people you play with. But how do you communicate with that player when 40 life x 3 or 4 to them feels unsurmountable? And honestly, it is to most players. They're just not going to be able to close out a game.
3 players in a 4-man pod archenemy'd a player for two games after he went infinite in the first. He wondered how come? We said it was because of his infinite loops. He replied, "I have to play infinite loops because everyone attacks me." We explained, "The infinite loops are the only reason we're attacking you first all the time. Unless someone else has something crazy, we're just going to attack you first." Then he said, "I won't win many games without the combo."
There's a reason why infinite loops are clutches/safety-valves. Notice how defensive cards or interaction (e.g.Force of Will, Nature's Claim, etc.) aren't the defacto safety-valves for these types of players.
Instead of disagreeing, I would like to point out that that doesn’t change the fact that even back then, people played 5 color good stuff to combo and that when they won with Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker, they were more often likely to use green ramp and Tooth and Nail for 9 mana and one card rather than your example of 10 mana and needing both cards.
Moreover, you raised the bigger and better point about how flexible a combo is in a deck, meaning that instead of being forced to play a specific color combination, even Mono Red could go off with the Goblin Shaman. However, I would also point out that it has not resulted in a surge of mono red decks. Instead, when you search for the top 5 mono red commanders on EDHRec, you get the following:
#1 Krenko, Mob Boss - Where Zealous conscripts doesn't even appear on the page despite having 36% of decks with Kiki-Jiki.
#2 Daretti, Scrap Savant - Where Kiki-Jiki is nowhere to be found.
#3 Neheb, the Eternal - Where Kiki-Jiki is in 10% of decks and the combos again are absent.
#4 Zada, Hedron Grinder - Where Kiki-Jiki does not appear (again).
#5 Purphoros, God of the Forge - Which is the first time the combo really shows up, yet Zealous conscripts makes up less than 30% of lists.
As a result, I am forced to conclude that you are right and it is more viable, the numbers do not support the hypothesis that ease of access has led to tangible action by those playing red. They could, but they are not in any meaningful quantity.
Instead, a search for Kiki-Jiki as a card on EDHRec shows up in only 7% of all possible deck. Not in all registered deck, but in all decks which have redand can use him. Sure, that is not really fair. Edgar Markov COULD use him, but never really would. Instead, let us dig another level deeper and see which decks are using Kiki-Jiki. Of the top 18 commanders in which it is found, #1 is mono red (very interesting) led by Iizuka the Ruthless. this is followed by 4 color partners, a pair of Rakdos decks, then 6 of the next 8 are also mono red (also very interesting), and the rest appear to be 3 or 4 colors. Of those mono red commander, we actually see the ones I covered above which do not appear to be using Kiki-Jiki to combo. Even the number one deck, Iizuka the Ruthless, does not have Zealous Conscripts anywhere to be found. (control + f to search and paste the name). So, again, the data seems to point that the hypothesis has been disproven.
===============================================================
What I was getting at with the quote in bold you referred to is that when you compare the best and most common combos of 2007, 2011, or even 2018, you will find that are just as fast and consistent as they have always been.
Hermit Druid has always been Hermit Druid. Foodchain Prossh and Animar combo have existed since they were spoiled and brewed. Doomsday has gotten some more possible piles, but it has been able to end games since before EDH left the confines of the judges table. Sure, some piles are better, but Dark Ritual or Lion's Eye Diamond into Doomsday ito GG has not changed, no matter which path was taken to get there.
The list of old combos which are all cheap and fast is quite long and there is literally a thread in these forums dedicated to them.
I agree that players have more combos to choose from and can fit certain combos into more decks. However, they seem to be more a matter of flavor anddeck choice rather than power level. I can take infinite turns with my Roon blink deck thanks to Eternal Witness, but I don't. I like to just getEtB value and win that way. Instead, I prefer to take infinite turns with Mizzix because I have mroe fun using Mystic Retrival and Runic Repetition, a pair of obscure cards which see almost no play in the format. Runic Repetition literally shows up in 169 decks accordingto EDH rec. That isa far more enjoyable way to take infinite turns than the old fashioned and well known Eternal Witness route, despite the result being the same.
I kind of do not know how to end this, and really appriciate your feedback. I have to go to lunch and then get t least some work done this afternoon, so I am just going to stop now and just post what I have. Thanks again.
The conscripts argument probably needs to focus on how many mono red decks played Kiki before conscripts and I would bet that it was near zero since there wasn't a combo (and Kiki is pretty good by himself but not amazing).
Adding conscripts enabled both 1) kiki commander to combo easily, 2) other people playing mono red to have a 2-card combo (that otherwise does not really exist in the color).
Looking at Deceiver Exarch is probably going to be much more representative, though i also forgot village bell-ringer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: The Old Combos
The old combos actually get better almost every year too. Food chain got eternal scourge allowing it to be played in mono green even (and just making it 1 mana faster and easier to cast). Doomsday just got an upgraded black draw spell that allows simpler doomsday piles in Ransack the lab.
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher is actually a great example of a new-ish card making an old combo easier, faster and more accessible - Food Chain didn't really rise to prominence in casual groups until Prossh came around and made it a one card combo.
Dramatic Scepter is probably the most common combo in CEDH and is only a year or two old. Same with Paradox Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------
Anyway I generally agree with the idea that people are gonna combo but I do think it is demonstrable that combo is becoming easier and faster.
Beyond all that though, I think the main points to engage in with combo discussions are:
1) is it really more common?
2) is it really a problem if it is?
Some of my discussion here has been assuming it is both of those, but I think those are probably the real basis that have to be dug into before looking at trying to solve a problem that we aren't sure is a real problem
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Yes, infinite mana has been a go-to for decks, but so has infinite turns, infinite damage, infinite storm, infinite etb/sacrifice, infinite tokens and so on.
Wow, a lot to unpack there, but I will try to be brief. Least important point first, when you said one color is better than the others, yet fail to state which one, I bet that you want us all to assume that it is blue because that is the stereotype. When asked, people overwhelmingly voted blue as the number one color. However, as the numbers played out, it was shown that is not even close to true. When calculated out, White was said to have hurt a deck's chances of winning by -4%, blue sat in the middle at +3% and black was at the top at +5%. While not far and away better, even green outperformed blue. In terms of mono colored decks, black also came in first place and blue surprisingly came in second to last, ahead of only white. When paired, Simic is the first guild to even have blue and shows up as the third place behind Rakdos and Golgari in first place. So, no, there is no one best color, especially if you thought it was blue. If you thought it was black, like I did, well... kind of? But not far and away the best.
Next, you even acknowledge that lowering life totals is not about combos, but making aggro decks more viable, yet fail to miss my entire point that despite aggro being considerably more VIABLE in other formats, they still are not being played at a proportionally higher rate. Even before Commander was a format, people played star magic and casual free for all at 20 life with 60x4 decks and combo/stax decks were still the most effective decks. Asking to lower the starting life total is crying into the wind. It is not going to happen, nor should it happen, and you have failed to give any evidence that it would make any meaningful difference, regardless of your reason to want it.
That anecdotal story just supported my position perfectly and worked to disprove what Sheldon wrote.
Sheldon is/was worried that the response to an infinite combo is that other player will try to go for their combos, and try to go for them as quickly if not faster than the person they lost to. Instead, you and your group teamed up and attacked the combo player. but why would you do that if attacking is not viable? Especially at 40 life? Additionally, you wrote that if another player had tried to do the same, they would be treated the same. These statements further prove that of a 4 person pod, 75% do NOT go for combo and instead choose attacking or some other method. It seems to me that the problem is one player who is too dense to figure out the solution to a problem when you even spell it out for them, yet you seem to feel that this story supports your position rather than destroys it. Had you told a story of how game two resulted in you and your friends racing to try and combo off before the guy who won game one, then you would be evidence of what Sheldon fears. Instead, the "social contract" is working, but one player ails to realize what is happening even when confronted about it. maybe your personal issue could be solved by proposing lending them a deck without a combo, then playing a game where he is not targeted right away by 3 players.
The fact that players use too few interactive/reactive/defensive cards to stop combo is a whole other topic and more of a problem than combo is.
This post all in all was great and I enjoyed reading it however, what I would say as someone does desire for a lower life total is the goal is never to make people not want to play Combo decks or do I think that changing this total will stop people from doing said thing I play 90% combo decks, and when I play formats like Canadian Highlander I play about 50/50 combo tempo decks, and I think that is a format which is probably closer to the mark than trying to compared Commander to Modern or some other 60 card 4 of a kind style of game. However maybe this also is not a good comparison because highlander points lists make you make a choice early about whether you want to run the tutors or the fast mana.
There are plenty of aggro decks and tempo decks and control decks and aggro decks and combo decks of all varieties and doesn't seem like the combo decks are always taking the wins.
Lowering the life total especially in a game with 4 people seems so relevant just on how many new considerations people have to make and how long they can afford to wait or not if they are deciding to play a combo deck. I also realize this doesn't really stop someone from just jamming their favorite combo into a control deck already designed to deal with all forms of other decks, but I don't really know a good way to change that math.
40 is just too much of a cushion, and as much I would like to wave a wand and make everyone's decks more interactive I also can not do that.
Are people not worried that those who are using less optimal combos would not simply increase the efficiency of their combos to ensure they can win faster with less life? That seems more likely than them breaking apart their decks. As someone who does not enjoy winning through straight up vanilla creature aggro damage I would certainly do as much as possible before switching away from control and combo. I do think that there is an arms race that occurs as more people add combo to their decks (I have noticed this in my own play groups as well, but I realize this is anecdotal evidence), but as this arms race occurs I find our games have gotten better and lasted longer as more people become familiar with combos and play more interaction and politick better instead of only focusing on their decks.
Another issue I have with lowering the life total is it makes it more likely someone will be knocked out early, which leaves to more feel bad games IMO. I've been in many games where a player focused on one player with aggro until they died, then the games continued on for hours.
In non-cEDH metas the higher life total seems even more important as more players play ramp and higher cmc cards (from my experience). Do others disagree? If so, why do you think so? Whereas in cEDH games I have played there have been many games where players life has stayed around 40 the entire game even when games have lasted hours.
I think the biggest issues are: (1) Talking with people beforehand and deciding on playing at similar power levels or agreeing that a game will be basically archenemy if the power levels are very different. (2) Playing more interaction (Many times I have played versus a Gitrog player with an extremely competitive deck with Dakmor Salvage as a key combo piece for the faster version of their deck. Being mono-blue I was in a bind for faster and permanent answers to this, but research and sticking to it got me to include Extract and more graveyard hate in my deck.) Interactive games make for the best games IMO. I'm continuously amazed how few people play reasonable amounts of interaction or waste interaction on weird things. (3) Being more aware of the threats and potential threats. This takes time to learn I know, but it baffles me how many times you can play versus the same people and yet they still seem unaware of what the key things to target to stop you are. (4) Sharing threat and potential threat information more with other players, including threats you pose if players are at obviously different power levels or newer to the game or you simply like more players to be knowledgeable. Players will only get better at playing more interaction and properly assessing threats if they learn. It is all of our responsibility to help them learn. Help your fellow commander players become better players.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
(I don't personally have a problem getting knocked out of a game early because in the format as it stands if an aggro person is splitting their time between people it usually goes very poorly for them)
I'm quite sure that combos have gotten stronger over time. You can insist that they haven't but that's just not the case. I don't understand how you want to frame me as the one who's being disingenuous.
I concede that Doomsday is old but Laboratory Maniac & Gitaxian Probe are new. Food Chain is old but Misthollow Raven, Squee, the Immortal, and Eternal Scourge are new. Lion's Eye Diamond is old but Auriok Salvagers is [relatively] new as well as most of the infinite mana outlets.
Mephidross Vampire turned into Mikaues, the Unhallowed. I remember when Crystal Shard + Eternal Witness + Time Warp was "strong" and people thought Crystal Shard was OP.
Blue is the strongest color. I thought it was obvious. It's not a "stereotype" or cliche to believe blue is the strongest color.
You've sourced EDH data a couple of times. I think you should be careful with how you use that imperfect source of information. Black -and guilds/wedges/shards with black- might be more popular but what does that have to do with the strength of the color?
Sure, I'll address it now then. First off, your presumption about aggro is incorrect. Aggro is not considerably more viable in other formats. Aggro is not viable in Vintage (besides Shops/Eldrazi, which aren't aggro in a sense but simply just means to abuse Mishra's Workshop and Eye of Ugin). It's also not viable in Legacy. It's also not viable in Modern. You must be delusional if you think that it's the case that aggro decks have fared well in any format other than Standard for a long time. And even then, aggro in Standard has needed considerable amounts of playable red burn to be winning GP's and PT's.
Lowering should happen even if it won't. But I'm okay either way. I'll play EDH still. Attacking lowers life totals. Having to lower someone who starts lower is easier. If that's not a meaningful difference, then...
I don't think my anecdote supports you at all. Even if you want to try to turn it against me. I'm sure that more than a reasonable amount of players will view 3 players having to full-on attack one specific player for an entire game...not particularly effective. Sure, we eliminated him but if his deck was more dedicated to combos, we probably wouldn't have be able to.
One of the reasons why we didn't just go for a faster combo instead of attacking him was because we didn't want to switch decks. It wasn't because of what you're saying. Sheldon wasn't talking about the arms race as some instantaneous thing that you are suggesting that it is. But if that game leads someone to go, "Hey next time I'm bringing something else just like that." That's what Sheldon's talking about.
Yeah, I feel that's a problem as well. It's probably the main problem in EDH deck building. And deck building is the most important part of magic.
You can tell someone to play more interaction but I'll tell you exactly what they say, "But that doesn't mean I'm going to draw it." A player doesn't do anything meaningful an entire game, but gets his one impactful play on turn 10 dealt with instantly who then complains about how the control deck counters/removes everything.
Being able to tell when/if it's time to help a player improve at magic and what/how to say/do is important in a community.
Also worth mentioning - combat damage from combo is combo, but things like, say, a 30-point rain of hailfire is not considered combo, a secure the wastes into craterhoof is not considered combo, a thrice-copied expropriate is not considered combo. Personally I put those things in roughly the same bucket as combo because they cause roughly the same result - everything that happened before is basically irrelevant and there's very little opportunity to interact with them. That is, of course, a subjective opinion.
So those would be my two main concerns about the data.
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
Yeah i'm pretty sure it was so easy to combo with Mephidross Vampire since that combo couldn't even hit players
Genuine error or intellectual dishonesty?
I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but I don't think this one really holds water. "Play more answers" isn't going to shut down combo in EDH.
In my experience, the only way that's worked is to play with people who are like-minded about the kinds of games you want to play, and to talk to each other about what we find okay and not okay in the game. If you can't come to an agreement, then it might be wise to not play with that person. I realize this is probably of no help to those who go to their LGS and just throw down with strangers.
http://www.commandercast.com/category/articles/generally-speaking
Follow me on Twitter: @generalspeak
I remember discussing and arguing in favor of combo bans back when I played 60 card 20 life multiplayer because combo didn't suffer from the same hindrances that aggro and control had to deal with, so life total is not the answer.
1) Logically, yes, combos are getting faster. When a set comes out, only one of three things is possible: Combos get slower, do not change at all or get faster. Well, that first possibility is absurd. Combos cannot get slower. Even if almost every set did NOTHING to make a combo fast, eventually some sets and cards will.
2) That being said, what are comparing when we say "faster"? I am being honest here, as you can have an opening hand with Gemstone Cavern either of the two spirit guides, Flash and either Protean Hulk or Summoner's Pact to get Hulk and win the game before the first player can draw their first card on their first turn. Effectively a turn zero win. It literally cannot get any faster than that, and that combo has existed since 2007 and how WotC/DCI reverted the errata on Flash to make it work like it was printed again. While highly unlikely to have such a hand and then players just say "Cool story bro, now draw a new 7 so we can play, because the rest of us haven't done anything and are effectively already ready to start game two." you cannot get faster than that, and that was 12 years ago.
What we mean is that other combos have become more consistent and/or require less mana to pull off. However, I contest that the most consistent combos are going off at a rate no different than they have been for years. It is my understanding that the consistent cEDH combos were executed as early as turn three, but more frequently as turn 4. Disruption and interaction would try to prevent them from achieving their goal, but when protected, they won games that early. Traditional/casual EDH games tended to see combos as early as turn 8 to my understanding. Am I wrong in that assessment? Are they now happening at a consistent rate sooner? I do not know. What is your experience?
I want to start my reply to you at the bottom by saying that just because I disagree with you on serveal points does not mean I have any hard feelings (which can be common online),and any jokes I direct in a reply is more a part of my humor than attacking you directly. Also, I start here at the bottom by complimenting you on a part I agree with most.
So, in response: Haters are gonna hate and complainers are gonna complain. That is the way of human interaction. Rules changes will do NOTHING to stop this kind of behavior.
I do not wish to derail this topic about debating which color is the best. I will state my opinion thusly:
Blue is very powerful.
Blue is also overrated.
I do not feel that any one color is the best. Not black nor blue nor the others.
I feel that white has proven to be the worst of the five, but the other 4 have proven to have strengths in various aspects which make them quite powerful, and history has shown that as well.
When given raw data which suggests that blue might not even be the second best color in Commander, you are quick to dismiss the findings. How scientific of you.
MtGTop8 disagrees with you. The data disagrees with you.
Aggro makes up 57% of the format. This is not just a matter of what shows up at events, but what makes top 8. Moreover, look at the results of the last 10 events and pay attention to which decks are winning and taking top4 as well. It is not like Combo is winning 50% or more of those events, because it isn’t.
Also, it is funny how you say that an aggro deck isn't an aggro deck because... reasons. It is not a combo deck. It is not a control deck. It is not a combo/control deck. It is by all means aggro. Aggro is not exclusively the realm of Savannah Lions and Lightning Bolt. I know that you know that, but I had to be a little hyperbolic for a moment.
Oops, wrong again. It makes up a solid third of the format. Combo does not makeup the other two thirds. Infact, according to mtgTo8, Legacy is balanced between all three archetypes with a roughly 33% of each.
Apparently 46% of the format is not viable. Compared to the 28% of combo and 26% of control, how could I be so stupid? My mistake.
I must be delusional indeed. Except the funny thing about science and facts is that they do not care what you feel or believe. mtgTop8 doesn't have an agenda. They just collect and present the data from real events. The numbers show that you are wrong. Prove otherwise, as the burden of proof is on you. I back my claims up with facts/data. You have not.
I do not pay any attention to standard. I just know that when I watch YouTube videos, content creators like TCGplayer and their series “Pretty Deece” has complained about the Rakdos/Mardu Vehicles from Kaladesh last year and later Goblin Chainwhirler. I really have no idea, but Standard is traditionally known as a healthy format when people are crashing creatures into one another and an unhealthy format with a need for bans when it is not.Also, mtgTop8 has aggro at 64% and combo at 2% right now. Also, if you use the option to look back in time at other standard eras, you will find over the last two years it was in the 72%+ range.
I have felt from the start that 40 life is too much for a 4 man pod, but also understood that 40 life was chosen because it was originally a 200 life poor for 5 players, which came to 40 life each and just stuck. I felt back in 2007 that 30 would have been a better balance and that 40 life was too much of a buffer when the game was designed around the math of 20 life. However, the talk of lowing the life total is also something separate which should be held separate from the topic of “Is too much combo bad for commander, and if so, what is the solution?” which is what I interpret this thread to be about. To argue that one wants life reduced to 30 or even eventually 20, it belongs in another thread which I would be happy to join in and comment on. It just is not a solution to the problem being discussed at hand, which I also do not think is a problem in the first place.
…and I am sure I will find a lot who agree with me that this is exactly part of the social contract. That Commander is by nature not a competitive format designed to be won at all costs and has prize support and player rankings. Who wins and loses does not really matter. The point of commander is to have fun playing magic, and when someone is causing the rest of the group to have less fun, one of the solutions is to talk to them and punish them IN GAME and make sure they take the hint. They can keep their deck and play it when the time is right. If they feel strongly against you, they can talk to you about what they want out of commander and blah blah blah. Does this really need to be explained? I guess so, though I tire of it quickly.
So, maybe git gud?
More seriously, what do you expect as an answer here? If you want to win more often, then win harder. I already wrote about how one of my favorite decks is Edgar Markov, inspired by ISBPathfiner's list. I also know that stax control decks are another way to kill combo. That is their purpose. When combo is everywhere, play stax. When stax is everywhere, run aggro. Magic is rock-paper-scissors, especially in a healthy format.
Oh look, a different interpretation. Well, then mine is wrong and yours is right because mine is mine and yours is yours. It must be nice that this is how the world works.
I understand how a slippery slope works.
I understand the language he was using in his comments.
It did not have to mean that the next game you try to go off faster, which is very much a thing which happens psychologically. Even JLK from the Command Zone talks about how when he sees competitive decks, then he knows it is time to bust how his big guns to play along.
We both know that an arms race does not have to happen at the table between games. Instead, it often happens in the deck building process. However, it can also happen at the table by choosing different decks or by choosing play lines which are more likely to find your combo and execute it.
Going back to Sheldon's comments, which feel like they are being picked through like religious scholars debate the words of Christ or Constitutional lawyers pick through the writings of the founding fathers of the USA...
This reminds me of the video from Gameplays by Clonehead where one player used Venser, the Sojourner to flicker Eternal Witness to recur Time Warp and take infinite turns. This was a video (no spoilers of which one) had interesting game play and tension which was abruptly ended by an infinite turn combo. It was very anticlimactic and left me with a bitter taste in my mouth as a viewer. Sure, it is part of the game, but a once interactive game suddenly took a left turn and came to an abrupt end. As a spectator, I wanted to se the game continue and play out in the manner with which it was headed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I just did a simple search of old school Tooth and Nail Combos and that was rated as the most popular back in extended and was very successful. The comments talked about how you essentially resolve Tooth and Nail, get that and win. There are many paths to victory, and in the end, the point still remains that TaN is a one card combo. Resolve TaN and win, or you are doing it wrong. That did not start with Mike and Trike. They just became the most effective combo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I agree and have taken issue with how valid the data is, but it is also the only data we have for non-competitive commander. Even they acknowledged that in their video.
However, the StarCityGames vs series does have higher end competitive games mixed in with pre-con games. MtgMuddstah also has a fair share of players and decks which do mostl what you said. I love Mizzix of the izmagnus and was watching a video with her asa commander. The Mizzix player went turn one Mystical tutor and did NOT use it to find Intuition to set up a combo, yet the player still won around turn 7 or 8 by casting a nasty spell chain and everyone quit against a giant Epic Experiment which did not even get a chance to resolve. Heck, even The Command Zone's most famous episode of Game Knights is the Shadowborn Apostle game which ended in a critical mass combo with Blood Artist. So, yeah, regardless of the hypothesis of what kinds of games would be featured, those kinds of games are there.
They also said that they were listing how players were knocked out of games, not how games were won. Non-infinite combo was also listed separately from combo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, I just fundamentally do not see a problem with the format, nor the direction it is headed. I hope that this year's commander 2019 product is a lot better than the trash they gave us last year, especially for the price, as that was the first year I refused to buy even one of the decks offered. I do not see the need to make rules changes or add cards to the banned list, or come out with some PSA to stop going for combos so often.
As I said pages back, "Oh, look... it is this thread again." We have been talking about this since before a Commander sub forum has existed. At least the community had a much needed split between EDH and cEDH. We also had a revolutionary idea of the 75% commander deck back in 2014 which also helped to solidify deck building and the aims of the format. Yet... here we are again. We will likely still be talking about combo in commander 5 years from now.
I'm not saying aggro isn't viable (I do think it is), but I don't think mtgtop8 is good at classifying decks. It's certainly not "science and facts" that stuff like Jund and D&T are aggro decks, it's an opinion, and in my opinion a wrong one
UGR Wanderer
UGB Tasigur Control
URB Jeleva Storm
RW Gisela Control
I agree that 30 life (or starting life total) can be an entirely separate discussion apart from combo being so strong.
edhREC is quite an imperfect source of data. We don't need data to know that Blue is best. It's cute to suggest another color is better. But Blue not even being the 2nd best color...yeah, sure. Blue can be overrated and the best at the same time.
Protean Hulk was printed in Dissension but was been banned for a while. So it's disingenuous to suggest that it's been around the entire time since 2006.
You point to the data and want to be "scientific." I'm not going to move goalposts, Humans is an aggro deck and it has done its fair share of winning. Having 12 free City of Brass and impactful additions from each and every set will do that for you. Well, you only present a limited glance of the data (mtgtop8 or tcdecks.net).
Sure, take a cursory glance of the data and "aggro" shows at a decent rate. But any serious look into the data shows otherwise. Is a "fish" deck really aggro when it's only 5 creatures are Snapcaster, Tasigur, Yixlid Jailer, and 2x Deathrite? In Modern, I would not consider Izzet Phoenix "aggro."
The way they categorize decks will never be perfect, but a look at the actual decklists will show that attacking for damage just does not win games.
C'mon...optimal play or deck building is not enough to close the gap between combo and aggro. You telling someone to "git gud" is essentially telling them to play Edgar or Edric to close the gap or play combo. Being "gud" at combo sure is easier when you have 40 life.
You can look at EDH through a rock-paper-scissors lens, but I don't think EDH resembles that. That's a framework for looking at competitive formats, and like you said, EDH isn't a competitive format. EDH isn't about archetypes so much as it's about what decks try to do. It's not aggro-control-combo. But in EDH it's voltron, tribal, infect, +1/+1 counters, pillowfort, group slug, stax, draw-go, food chain, flash, eggs, T&N, group-hug, artifacts-matters, lands-matter, Urza themed, all white-bordered, etc.
I don't view combos being around as a problem. I view the chasm between combo and attacking for damage as the problem. It's impossible to outrace combo as the format stands.
2) I gave the hulk combo as an EXAMPLE of how combos can be turn 0, which proves that they cannot get faster than that, but they can get more consistent. The fact that Hulk Flash was banned in EDH for a long time is irrelevant to the existence of such a combo. I was simply proving my point that eventually a combo can and will reach the critical mass of winning before player one can even draw a card to begin the game.
3) As I wrote in the comment, "git gud" is the internet joke reply when somebody says it is impossible or unlikely to do something which can in fact be done if you really wanted to.
-------------------
I don't know. My perception of life and gaming might just be different. In my time involved in my hobbies, I am proud to say that when I really put my mind to something, I accomplish my goals and do not believe in "can't". If you want something bad enough, then make it happen.
You might not like the solutions or methods. Maybe you find that you do not want it bad enough to change it. Maybe you learn something new and realize it does not need changing, but rather that you were the one who needed to change. Such is the process of life.
I have come to terms with the state of Commander, my favorite format, and quite enjoy it. There are things about it which I think could be better, and some of he ways I implement that is by cultivating my play group.
--------------
I hope everyone reading this has a great and peaceful weekend.
They are at something like a 2-3 out of 10 on the power-level scale, and most of the games they pulled from are in the same ballpark. They also have a demonstrated bias against hard combo, control decks, and blue in general, preferring soft combos that simply produce an overwhelming but not insurmountable board-state (instead of immediately ending the game). This is absolutely understandable, given that the way they choose to play results in more dramatic and entertaining gameplay videos.
Their data points are not entirely useless, but they're definitely not indicative of the format as a whole. Not by a long shot.
That said, I wouldn't take anything Sheldon says about the format too seriously either: as people frequently point out, he speaks like someone who lives in a bubble of exceptionally low-powered friends-only games where everyone just plays big dudes and turns them sideways, which is only one way to play the game. His rhetoric is dangerous for you if you like to play high-powered, heavy-interaction games, or if you like to play pick-up games with randoms, but at the end of the day his opinions are just opinions, not gospel.
The reality is that Magic is a game where the goal is to win, and EDH is a format therein where you're given a different set of tools and hurdles to work with, but it is still fundamentally a game of Magic. The goal is -always- to try to win, whether you're also taking into account other potential goals or not (flavor, doing something funny/cool, etc.) If you're not trying to win at all, you're not really playing the game. It's like that one guy who plays Kirby in Smash Bros. just to eat people and jump off the stage. It's funny once or twice, but that person doesn't get invited back if that's all they do.
Combo is simply the most efficient way to put a game away, and it always will be unless the banned list becomes gigantic. In order to level the playing field (even a little) lowering starting life totals wouldn't be a bad idea. It would also help if newer players weren't so interaction-averse, packing more answers instead of more fatties, but that's impossible to police. Combo would still be king, but things might be a little closer if you can actually race.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Firstly, combos are easier, faster, more available, and more resilient nowadays. That's just going to happen as you print more cards. But would I say combo is more prevalent? No. I don't think so at all. If people are going down the combo route now, they would have done so before. Arms race was happening in my playgroup in 2011, it's the natural progression of things. Why is Sheldon talking about it now? Because he's starting to actually play EDH with people outside his niche and realizing that a large percentage of people don't play the game the way he does. Immediately after, he started the Commander Advisory Group as a way to combat being so out of the loop.
So how do we take combo down a peg?
The life total should not change, but even if it did, that won't stop combo;
Ring/Crypt should be banned but that won't stop combo;
I don't personally condone banning any tutors, but even if some were, that won't stop combo; and
I actually agree with MRHBlue that there are too many combos of comparable power to warrant banning any of them.
Not only is there no way to stop combo from being the best way to kill a table, but arms race is inevitable (barring a discussion about power level that brings everyone to absolute agreement, something I consider almost impossible considering most people want different things out of this game).
And to derail some more: blue is the strongest color, followed by green and a very close black, then white, then a distant red (however for mono color decks, white is the worst)
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
I say this as a non-combo, non-CEDH, player. I get that combo is getting stronger, but this discussion is generally focused on the non-CEDH side of things, and combo has always been powerful there, but under-represented. Generally and by-in-large because Combo is simply not the type of game most non-CEDH players wish to play.
So... If it's already been strong, but non-CEDH chooses not to play it, does it really matter to us that it gets stronger?
If anything, banning certain pieces could send the wrong message of "These were the culprits, but other combo is clearly OK because we haven't banned it" instead of sending the message of "Play games that your playgroup will enjoy, no matter what that type of game might be?"
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek