Sheldon: creates multiplayer format with 40 life, fast mana, under costed tutours with expectancy that nobody does anything aside from playing creatures and pass turn.
Players: creates efficient game plan to - gasp - complete the game objective. which is to win the game, in an efficient manner such that they don't lose to the other guy you didn't eliminate.
Sheldon:
I think the best solution to the problem is:
1) lower the starting life total to 30, 25, or even 20. This allows proactive decks to reign in combo decks, makes non-combo a more viable strategy, and reduces the power of stupid BS like necropotence. Maybe griselbrand could even come off the banlist, who knows.
2) ban the fast mana. Less important, but still. It creates so many nongames. Kill with fire please. Also it could be (slightly) more problematic with a lower life total, since aggro can have pretty insane starts off a ring or crypt.
I don't think combo decks are a problem, if you play vs a combo deck you can usually adjust your playstyle in order to stop them from going off
Or playing combo in control shells to finish the game that is completely fine since you can't really win with snapcaster beats here
What is a problem is non-combo decks that run one or two infinite combos that randomly win games out of nowhere sometimes I either go full combo or no combo
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UG Arixmethes Combo UGR Wanderer UGB Tasigur Control URB Jeleva Storm RW Gisela Control
I don't recall where I saw it but I think we're going to get an announcement on the 8th regarding the philosophy document along with other bits from both the RC and the CAG.
Sheldon mentioned a while back on a podcast that looking at the philosophy document was one of the first tasks for the CAG. I dont think there is an official date for this to be completed, but next ban list announcement seems like a reasonable guess.
I found it the full quote is
We should have an updated philosophy document for the 8 July release.
combo isn't inherently bad. games have to end. there's no difference between killing a pod with infinite combo x instead of just hoofing out, or shared animosity tokens zerg rush, or voltron bull*****, either way someone or everyone dies.
i've also long argued that embracing it makes for a more interactive game. if you know everyone is combo'ing off you're going to run more ways to stop those and if you're doing it yourself you're going to run more ways to protect your own. interactivity increases. it goes from being a 20 hour long pod where everyone lines up craw wurms like gentlemen to an actual game.
sheldon's views on commander... i've never agreed with them. he takes an approach that's very much do nothing. he's against just about everything that isn't just dudes lining up. its a very boring non-interactive way to play. that's his thing though, kitchen tables where nothing happens and eventually 90/90 hydra of bull***** gains trample and doesn't eat a doom blade.
its a totally different way to play, but its also baby's first edh game and that doesn't last very long. the natural progression of any group is to move toward winning. interacting with each other more. the very nature of the game and playing with the same people over a long period of times makes it an arms race. its not just an edh thing. even that 60 card casual group in college is going to find ways to beat that guy next week, or steve will get a new dragon for his dragons deck.
lean into it. stop fighting it.
edit: and yeah, you're gonna have a real bad time if you take his approach to edh and run into people who don't.
combo isn't inherently bad. games have to end. there's no difference between killing a pod with infinite combo x instead of just hoofing out, or shared animosity tokens zerg rush, or voltron bull*****, either way someone or everyone dies.
i've also long argued that embracing it makes for a more interactive game. if you know everyone is combo'ing off you're going to run more ways to stop those and if you're doing it yourself you're going to run more ways to protect your own. interactivity increases. it goes from being a 20 hour long pod where everyone lines up craw wurms like gentlemen to an actual game.
sheldon's views on commander... i've never agreed with them. he takes an approach that's very much do nothing. he's against just about everything that isn't just dudes lining up. its a very boring non-interactive way to play. that's his thing though, kitchen tables where nothing happens and eventually 90/90 hydra of bull***** gains trample and doesn't eat a doom blade.
its a totally different way to play, but its also baby's first edh game and that doesn't last very long. the natural progression of any group is to move toward winning. interacting with each other more. the very nature of the game and playing with the same people over a long period of times makes it an arms race. its not just an edh thing. even that 60 card casual group in college is going to find ways to beat that guy next week, or steve will get a new dragon for his dragons deck.
lean into it. stop fighting it.
edit: and yeah, you're gonna have a real bad time if you take his approach to edh and run into people who don't.
There is absolutely a difference in how you win.
If you win through resource denial, the game can drag on and get really boring
If you win through suddenly resolving a single spell that doesn't care about the game up to that point, it doesn't create a satisfying conclusion
If you win through building up a strong board position and killing everyone with it, that's what a lot of casual players would be more ok with
etc
The conclusion to the game is like a story, there can be good ways to end a story and bad ways to end a story.
And I find that when everyone is trying to combo off, the game becomes, well, just not a fun game to play. Boy I sure did love that game where my opponent spent 30 minutes digging through their deck with the paradox engine I tried to counter! You played broken mana rocks and cast godo on turn 3 and no one had a free counter to stop it, what a great game we are playing! Ad nauseum after the table spent their resources stopping the previous player from trying to win that turn? Why yes I do think that's fair to draw 30 cards for 5 mana at instant speed and then use those cards to end the game immediately.
The problem isn't that combo is a means to end the game, the problem is that, at a certain level of competition, it's very nearly the ONLY means to end the game.
In a better format, people should be able to make their decks more competitive without necessarily gravitating toward combo control. Every other format has a relatively diverse set of archetypes available at high levels of competition. But in commander, it's just a truism that competitive = combo. And that's very boring for those of us who aren't interested in playing combo.
I think the fault for this comes down to the rules. 40 life is really the primary problem. As long as there is 120 life to face down, combo will be the dominant competitive strategy by a country mile. If anything, 30 isn't far enough imo. I'd argue for 20. You still have 60 enemy life to deal with, not to mention 100 card singleton - modern-style burn isn't suddenly going to become viable. But tight, aggressive strategies might actually be able to pressure combo decks and force them to interact with them, at least in a semi-competitive scene.
Sure, some aggro decks will be obnoxiously powerful in a weaker meta - but that's already true of combo and control decks.
complete the game objective. which is to win the game,
I don't want to be pollyanna too much here but the game objective of EDH for me is far more than to win the game. That's *an* objective. But not the objective. Lots of sub objecives
* Do my thing
* Hopefully see other people do their thing
* Chat with people
* Have a good time
Winning is fairly low on the list for me actually. I mean, I'm trying to win, but if it were the only objective I'd be doing it a lot differently and so would most people.
It is weird when someone says winning is the goal in a game with a win condition and people take that to me mean people who are playing to that don't also do everything you just listed.
Winning isn't the only objective and no one is saying that so trying to spin something into that is misleading.
When the language used says winning is THE goal, not a goal, of course it will be interpreted that everything will take a backseat to winning.
Also, winning and the other goals are often in direct conflict. Would my deck win more with armageddon? Yep. Should I put it in? For most playgroups I've seen, no.
Deck design for a casual multiplayer format has multiple targets, and it seems that most players ignore one of the most important ones. Is your deck fun to play against? Ignoring this is not unique to competitive players, but they tend to have the card pools to make the most oppressive decks. Casual players get there more gradually through arms race over months or years. There needs to be more of a focus on making decks fun to play against in casual edh deckbuilding.
Commander is only a causal format in that it is a multiplayer one, I feel that people who wave that word around as a charm against certain kinds of decks are in the wrong.
Especially when a lot of the most powerful game changing additions to ssid format come directly out of official Commander product.
Your single track definition of Armageddon is also flawed having had it cast against me and by me multiple times I can tell you that how a card is played and how the mood around a table is, often much more important than how powerful the card is.
Here's a comment that Sheldon agreed with on FB's thread on his page:
T-"But what Sheldon's saying here, I believe, is that he takes issue with people moving more and more towards using those infinite combos as the primary way of ending games overall, and those combos happening a little sooner every time.
A lot of my decks have an instant "I win" button for when the game's been going way too long and we need to wrap up, but nobody will concede, and that's fine- the issue is when people increasingly reach for that game-over button as the PRIMARY way to end every game, and reach for it sooner and sooner and sooner. Using a last-resort combo to end the game 2.5 hours in so you can all go eat something is way different than comboing off on turn 5 because you can"
Treating combo as a back door and not as an archetype that it is, is the problem in and of itself and expecting any length of game or 'story' to develop is also part of the problem IMO.
Not opposed to long involved games of magic, opposed to slogs.
Also the idea that if the opening comes up to play some cards in your deck and you choose not to is baffling to me, you put cards in deck to use them when the situation presents.
Also the idea that if the opening comes up to play some cards in your deck and you choose not to is baffling to me, you put cards in deck to use them when the situation presents.
I agree with this point.
Unless you really don't care about winning, and your goal is...optimal game length(?)...then you're naturally going to want to be the first one to decide the game has gone into overtime, so you can "justify" using your combo to win.
Play to win. If that results in an uninteresting or unpleasant experience, then you need to fix your deck. Simple.
Also the idea that if the opening comes up to play some cards in your deck and you choose not to is baffling to me, you put cards in deck to use them when the situation presents.
I agree with this point.
Unless you really don't care about winning, and your goal is...optimal game length(?)...then you're naturally going to want to be the first one to decide the game has gone into overtime, so you can "justify" using your combo to win.
Play to win. If that results in an uninteresting or unpleasant experience, then you need to fix your deck. Simple.
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion and say this ends up at straight cedh. Everyone trying to win with every card at their disposal.
CEDH has very limited strategies that actually work, because it's competitive. In the same way every other format has there best decks, edh is no exception.
It is not only possible, but very likely that none of these strategies are appealing.
What then? If the solution is to stop playing, obviously there is a problem with the format if people would rather quit than play it.
This boils down to Kitchen Table vs Competitive viewpoints, which is an immovable object vs the unstoppable force scenario.
The answer is communication usually.
If this is tricky (flgs game with strangers) I suggest the french vanilla replacement strategy. Say you or your opponent is ending games with out of nowhere infinite combos or playing some longwinded wincon then next game replace the demoralising card in the deck with a french vanilla creature that matches it's colour and casting cost (If an X spell default to 1 cmc)
I say french vanilla but I mean anything in the draft chaff box you usually find in the store (or bring your own replacement if you know it can be a troublesome card). Your deck only has one wincon and it's an infinite combo? (swap out the tutor, or other card that makes it go off efficiently.)
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion and say this ends up at straight cedh. Everyone trying to win with every card at their disposal.
CEDH has very limited strategies that actually work, because it's competitive. In the same way every other format has there best decks, edh is no exception.
It is not only possible, but very likely that none of these strategies are appealing.
What then? If the solution is to stop playing, obviously there is a problem with the format if people would rather quit than play it.
I think you've taken the wrong idea from my post. My point is that, if you don't want to combo win, then you shouldn't put those cards in your deck. If you're tutoring for something besides your combo because it's "too early" then you're doing it wrong.
But I think if people play against each other long enough and follow the "combo when it's been long enough" philosophy, it will naturally pull towards cEDH as people are motivated to combo earlier and earlier. Which is one of many reasons why I think that philosophy sucks. If you don't think combo winning is a fun way to end a game, then don't put it in your deck. Duh.
And I'll reiterate my point from earlier - a big problem at the core of EDH isn't just that combo is effective, it's that that combo in essentially the only effective way to win in a highly competitive setting. The variety of strategies in cEDH sucks. Reducing the life total could do major work to help to change that.
The problem isn't that combo is a means to end the game, the problem is that, at a certain level of competition, it's very nearly the ONLY means to end the game.
In a better format, people should be able to make their decks more competitive without necessarily gravitating toward combo control. Every other format has a relatively diverse set of archetypes available at high levels of competition. But in commander, it's just a truism that competitive = combo. And that's very boring for those of us who aren't interested in playing combo.
I think the fault for this comes down to the rules. 40 life is really the primary problem. As long as there is 120 life to face down, combo will be the dominant competitive strategy by a country mile. If anything, 30 isn't far enough imo. I'd argue for 20. You still have 60 enemy life to deal with, not to mention 100 card singleton - modern-style burn isn't suddenly going to become viable. But tight, aggressive strategies might actually be able to pressure combo decks and force them to interact with them, at least in a semi-competitive scene.
Sure, some aggro decks will be obnoxiously powerful in a weaker meta - but that's already true of combo and control decks.
i hear this a lot from less experienced aggro players, i don't hear it from ones that are prepared with ways to protect the monster they've created, their swarm, or ways to disrupt combopants over there.
combo isn't inherently bad. games have to end. there's no difference between killing a pod with infinite combo x instead of just hoofing out, or shared animosity tokens zerg rush, or voltron bull*****, either way someone or everyone dies.
i've also long argued that embracing it makes for a more interactive game. if you know everyone is combo'ing off you're going to run more ways to stop those and if you're doing it yourself you're going to run more ways to protect your own. interactivity increases. it goes from being a 20 hour long pod where everyone lines up craw wurms like gentlemen to an actual game.
sheldon's views on commander... i've never agreed with them. he takes an approach that's very much do nothing. he's against just about everything that isn't just dudes lining up. its a very boring non-interactive way to play. that's his thing though, kitchen tables where nothing happens and eventually 90/90 hydra of bull***** gains trample and doesn't eat a doom blade.
its a totally different way to play, but its also baby's first edh game and that doesn't last very long. the natural progression of any group is to move toward winning. interacting with each other more. the very nature of the game and playing with the same people over a long period of times makes it an arms race. its not just an edh thing. even that 60 card casual group in college is going to find ways to beat that guy next week, or steve will get a new dragon for his dragons deck.
lean into it. stop fighting it.
edit: and yeah, you're gonna have a real bad time if you take his approach to edh and run into people who don't.
There is absolutely a difference in how you win.
If you win through resource denial, the game can drag on and get really boring
If you win through suddenly resolving a single spell that doesn't care about the game up to that point, it doesn't create a satisfying conclusion
If you win through building up a strong board position and killing everyone with it, that's what a lot of casual players would be more ok with
etc
The conclusion to the game is like a story, there can be good ways to end a story and bad ways to end a story.
And I find that when everyone is trying to combo off, the game becomes, well, just not a fun game to play. Boy I sure did love that game where my opponent spent 30 minutes digging through their deck with the paradox engine I tried to counter! You played broken mana rocks and cast godo on turn 3 and no one had a free counter to stop it, what a great game we are playing! Ad nauseum after the table spent their resources stopping the previous player from trying to win that turn? Why yes I do think that's fair to draw 30 cards for 5 mana at instant speed and then use those cards to end the game immediately.
okay... but like... the game still ends. that's the point. people say they're in it for the experience, and to create a story, but you're not. the nature of the game is to win. no one likes losing. even a super casual vorthos deck is going to eventually move along to be able to keep up if all it does is lose.
look if your opponent combos out and you're sitting there making him play it out, that's on you. not them. my experience with combo has been vastly different than yours. where when almost everyone is packing some form of infinite combo, everyone else steps up and runs ways to disrupt it. they've been far more enjoyable games for everyone involved so long as everyone is on the same page because you're interacting with each other. its not just sit there and watch the sliver player turn sideways every turn. you've having counter wars, you're digging for answers, you're keeping mana up, you're actively thinking about what other players are doing rather than just what you're doing. i can't stress that point enough.
edit:
i think this is the biggest point for me. as long as everyone is on the same page, as long as everyone accepts that combo happens...
you're actively thinking about what other players are doing rather than just what you're doing
once that starts happening the game becomes more interactive, people run ways to stop your combo, they run ways to protect their combo, they run ways to disrupt your board to get their team through, etc etc.
i see a lot of the time aggro players *****ing they can't keep up, but they aren't running the ways to stop a combo, or disrupt control, or they blow their load on 10 slivers and no way to give haste.
the whole thing breaks down to interaction, and games where everyone is responding to each other rather than just play card pass play card pass attack pass attack pass... are far more enjoyable.
people gripe about certain archetypes, but they remember those decks and those games. they come back next week (in a perfect world) sporting answers to what made them lose.
yes, it creates an arms race... welcome to 26 ******* years of magic: the gathering.
i hear this a lot from less experienced aggro players, i don't hear it from ones that are prepared with ways to protect the monster they've created, their swarm, or ways to disrupt combopants over there.
I win a pretty high percentage of my games regardless of what I play. My latest aggressive decks were both boros (feather and sylvia + khorvath). Both went nearly undefeated in multiplayer, and I took the S+K deck to a 1v1 tournament where it won. The animar guy in the last round seemed rather put out that I killed his commander every time it hit the board, pro-white notwithstanding.
But I have an extensive collection and a lot of deckbuilding experience, so I try to differentiate my experience from the experience of the man on the street. When I see other people in my LGS/playgroup playing anything remotely close to aggro, they're winning a very low percentage of games because of the natural disadvantages the strategy has in a multiplayer format, in addition to the high life totals. Properly aggressive decks (i.e. decks where goblin guide is a powerful card) are basically nonexistent in any meta. The decks that are winning are either playing a combo, or some other win-the-game-right-now spell or synergy.
I think you've taken the wrong idea from my post. My point is that, if you don't want to combo win, then you shouldn't put those cards in your deck. If you're tutoring for something besides your combo because it's "too early" then you're doing it wrong.
I guess I do it wrong with my Akiri, Line-Slinger voltron deck, because as I stated up thread I run the combo of Godo, Bandit Warlord and Helm of the Host but I rarely go for it instead choosing to go with different equipment to put on Akiri in an effort to at least kill or do serious damage to one player.
Full disclosure I'm in the same play group as the T I quoted. Our group runs the street from casualish decks to lab manic and infinite turns to aristocrats. But We've been playing together off and on for years.
The problem with combos is how much more efficient they are than the other ways of killing players. I have long since questioned if 40 life / 21 commander damage is a bit high. I think that 40 life / 21 commander is fine assuming nobody plans to combo win but the short answer to how to make it less efficient is to give them less time and wiggle room to do so. In this game, 8+ mana haymaker effects and combos have become the bread and butter wincon because of how hard it is to win via other means.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
The problem with combos is how much more efficient they are than the other ways of killing players. I have long since questioned if 40 life / 21 commander damage is a bit high. I think that 40 life / 21 commander is fine assuming nobody plans to combo win but the short answer to how to make it less efficient is to give them less time and wiggle room to do so. In this game, 8+ mana haymaker effects and combos have become the bread and butter wincon because of how hard it is to win via other means.
Bingo! And without banning an entire expansions worth of cards, there is nothing that can really ever be done about it. It’s the unfortunate nature of the format.
The problem isn't that combo is a means to end the game, the problem is that, at a certain level of competition, it's very nearly the ONLY means to end the game.
In a better format, people should be able to make their decks more competitive without necessarily gravitating toward combo control. Every other format has a relatively diverse set of archetypes available at high levels of competition. But in commander, it's just a truism that competitive = combo. And that's very boring for those of us who aren't interested in playing combo.
I think the fault for this comes down to the rules. 40 life is really the primary problem. As long as there is 120 life to face down, combo will be the dominant competitive strategy by a country mile. If anything, 30 isn't far enough imo. I'd argue for 20. You still have 60 enemy life to deal with, not to mention 100 card singleton - modern-style burn isn't suddenly going to become viable. But tight, aggressive strategies might actually be able to pressure combo decks and force them to interact with them, at least in a semi-competitive scene.
Sure, some aggro decks will be obnoxiously powerful in a weaker meta - but that's already true of combo and control decks.
i hear this a lot from less experienced aggro players, i don't hear it from ones that are prepared with ways to protect the monster they've created, their swarm, or ways to disrupt combopants over there.
combo isn't inherently bad. games have to end. there's no difference between killing a pod with infinite combo x instead of just hoofing out, or shared animosity tokens zerg rush, or voltron bull*****, either way someone or everyone dies.
i've also long argued that embracing it makes for a more interactive game. if you know everyone is combo'ing off you're going to run more ways to stop those and if you're doing it yourself you're going to run more ways to protect your own. interactivity increases. it goes from being a 20 hour long pod where everyone lines up craw wurms like gentlemen to an actual game.
sheldon's views on commander... i've never agreed with them. he takes an approach that's very much do nothing. he's against just about everything that isn't just dudes lining up. its a very boring non-interactive way to play. that's his thing though, kitchen tables where nothing happens and eventually 90/90 hydra of bull***** gains trample and doesn't eat a doom blade.
its a totally different way to play, but its also baby's first edh game and that doesn't last very long. the natural progression of any group is to move toward winning. interacting with each other more. the very nature of the game and playing with the same people over a long period of times makes it an arms race. its not just an edh thing. even that 60 card casual group in college is going to find ways to beat that guy next week, or steve will get a new dragon for his dragons deck.
lean into it. stop fighting it.
edit: and yeah, you're gonna have a real bad time if you take his approach to edh and run into people who don't.
There is absolutely a difference in how you win.
If you win through resource denial, the game can drag on and get really boring
If you win through suddenly resolving a single spell that doesn't care about the game up to that point, it doesn't create a satisfying conclusion
If you win through building up a strong board position and killing everyone with it, that's what a lot of casual players would be more ok with
etc
The conclusion to the game is like a story, there can be good ways to end a story and bad ways to end a story.
And I find that when everyone is trying to combo off, the game becomes, well, just not a fun game to play. Boy I sure did love that game where my opponent spent 30 minutes digging through their deck with the paradox engine I tried to counter! You played broken mana rocks and cast godo on turn 3 and no one had a free counter to stop it, what a great game we are playing! Ad nauseum after the table spent their resources stopping the previous player from trying to win that turn? Why yes I do think that's fair to draw 30 cards for 5 mana at instant speed and then use those cards to end the game immediately.
okay... but like... the game still ends. that's the point. people say they're in it for the experience, and to create a story, but you're not. the nature of the game is to win. no one likes losing. even a super casual vorthos deck is going to eventually move along to be able to keep up if all it does is lose.
look if your opponent combos out and you're sitting there making him play it out, that's on you. not them. my experience with combo has been vastly different than yours. where when almost everyone is packing some form of infinite combo, everyone else steps up and runs ways to disrupt it. they've been far more enjoyable games for everyone involved so long as everyone is on the same page because you're interacting with each other. its not just sit there and watch the sliver player turn sideways every turn. you've having counter wars, you're digging for answers, you're keeping mana up, you're actively thinking about what other players are doing rather than just what you're doing. i can't stress that point enough.
edit:
i think this is the biggest point for me. as long as everyone is on the same page, as long as everyone accepts that combo happens...
you're actively thinking about what other players are doing rather than just what you're doing
once that starts happening the game becomes more interactive, people run ways to stop your combo, they run ways to protect their combo, they run ways to disrupt your board to get their team through, etc etc.
i see a lot of the time aggro players *****ing they can't keep up, but they aren't running the ways to stop a combo, or disrupt control, or they blow their load on 10 slivers and no way to give haste.
the whole thing breaks down to interaction, and games where everyone is responding to each other rather than just play card pass play card pass attack pass attack pass... are far more enjoyable.
people gripe about certain archetypes, but they remember those decks and those games. they come back next week (in a perfect world) sporting answers to what made them lose.
yes, it creates an arms race... welcome to 26 ******* years of magic: the gathering.
Your whole central premise is wrong. I think you are taking "I only care about winning" and transferring that to "everyone only cares about winning"
I have taken tons of cards out of decks that I thought weren't fun to play against, even if they win more games. I took apart miakeus because it comboed out to consistently. I don't run exquisite blood/sanguine bond in karlov even with enchantment tutors because it's a boring way to end the game. I avoid mass land destruction in almost every deck I make deliberately. I don't have sage of hours in ezuri or mairsil despite being the most efficient way to close out a game with both of those commanders. Lots of examples of cards that would absolutely make my decks win more, and the cards instead sit in my binder because it makes the game worse if I include them.
And if you are trying to win, no, aggro is not a viable strategy. Go ahead and run your disruption, but my combo based decks have access to all the same disruption, and my threats win the game instantly regardless of the opponents, while you have to deal a substantially higher amount of damage.
...and you have rules like "can only do a repeated loop 5 times maximum, and only one extra turn in a row, no effects that destroy more than 2 of opponents lands, and whatever else would be thought of as un-casual like.
I don't know exactly what this would look like, but it's certainly worth looking at because the demand is there. Supply..demand..how the world works..
It might involve separate ban-lists as they are separate formats, or you might just have effects not work to the full extent. Like an Armageddon can only destroy 2 lands of each player (players choice), and something like Expropriate can only provide one extra turn.
That sounds terrible. Making cards not function as printed?! That's worse than just banning them. Placing artificial limiters on things? I'm sure that won't lead to arguments over what exactly defines a repeated loop!
I think there is just too much passiveness towards progressing the game in a positive experience for others. Basically I would do a much better job of leading commander to a more healthy future...just saying, make me your overlord.
And that misses the point. Different players like different games, and the whole point of the more passive approach is to allow different types to find the games they enjoy. If you over-regulate and repeatedly tinker with things in an attempt to silence things you dislike, you'll be excluding a lot of people and annoying even those you seek to cater to. Nobody has exactly the same idea of what should be.
You know in Star Wars when Leia says "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."? Apply that to managing a format. The more you tighten your grip and try to squeeze down on a specific playstyle, the more players you lose. They'll flee in droves, and you'll be left with nothing.
Commander and EDH have always been primarily a social format. They emphasize the social aspect. Yes, we have games we dislike (I just had two awful ones this week - one where someone dumped a bunch of mana rocks and took three extra turns before my third turn and another with a combo deck playing solitaire during a 20 minute turn as he slowly ignored everybody and gradually pulled out a win). But communication is key. They know now that we don't appreciate those types of games. We know that they do. What we do from here is up to us. According to you, you would cater to one group and tell the others to get lost and play a different format.
If you win through resource denial, the game can drag on and get really boring
If you win through suddenly resolving a single spell that doesn't care about the game up to that point, it doesn't create a satisfying conclusion
If you win through building up a strong board position and killing everyone with it, that's what a lot of casual players would be more ok with
etc
The conclusion to the game is like a story, there can be good ways to end a story and bad ways to end a story.
I do have some sympathy for Sheldon here, but I think it's important to distinguish between combos and dedicated combo decks. Even as someone who has a couple of the latter and enjoys playing them, I will definitely agree that decks built around pulling off one or two combos consistently (and usually quickly) can be a problem - they have a place in the format, but that place is playing against similar types of decks. Taking a traditional EDH deck up against cEDH decks will typically end with an unenjoyable game for the players. I don't want to see cEDH becoming a completely different format with separate rules and/or banlist, but I do think players need to be very careful with it, and moves towards such gameplay should be discussed with the group, and not unilaterally attempted by one or two players.
Combos without the support of a dedicated deck on the other hand, well, I can't really see a problem. Yes, sure, they win the game, but so do all sorts of things in this format. What's the difference in losing to a combo on turn 15 and losing to some fatties punching you on turn 15? Despite the claims, combos rarely "come from nowhere" - there's usually plenty of development and play before someone will be in a position to combo, plus there's all sorts of non-infinite things that can go from nonthreatening to lethal very quickly, even more so if you're simply looking at lethal for one player. I've got a Titania, Protector of Argoth deck that regularly goes from untapping with nothing but the general and lands on the board to killing the table that turn. Nothing infinite there (there is technically a way to go infinite in the deck, but I have to draw my deck first, so...), but is there any real difference in the impact?
And for the record, my decks range from Karador Spirit Tribal to Tasigur Sceptre combo, so you can see I love the janky highly "casual" side of the format as well as the competitive one.
Here's a comment that Sheldon agreed with on FB's thread on his page:
T-"But what Sheldon's saying here, I believe, is that he takes issue with people moving more and more towards using those infinite combos as the primary way of ending games overall, and those combos happening a little sooner every time.
A lot of my decks have an instant "I win" button for when the game's been going way too long and we need to wrap up, but nobody will concede, and that's fine- the issue is when people increasingly reach for that game-over button as the PRIMARY way to end every game, and reach for it sooner and sooner and sooner. Using a last-resort combo to end the game 2.5 hours in so you can all go eat something is way different than comboing off on turn 5 because you can"
-Sheldon "Yeah, what T said"
This makes no sense. The ethos of Commander is 'build casual, play competitive'. You don't put combos in your deck and not play them. It makes the game worthless.
Here's a comment that Sheldon agreed with on FB's thread on his page:
T-"But what Sheldon's saying here, I believe, is that he takes issue with people moving more and more towards using those infinite combos as the primary way of ending games overall, and those combos happening a little sooner every time.
A lot of my decks have an instant "I win" button for when the game's been going way too long and we need to wrap up, but nobody will concede, and that's fine- the issue is when people increasingly reach for that game-over button as the PRIMARY way to end every game, and reach for it sooner and sooner and sooner. Using a last-resort combo to end the game 2.5 hours in so you can all go eat something is way different than comboing off on turn 5 because you can"
-Sheldon "Yeah, what T said"
This makes no sense. The ethos of Commander is 'build casual, play competitive'. You don't put combos in your deck and not play them. It makes the game worthless.
That’s fine. I think the point is people have been moving ever so closer to just getting to their combos ASAP, rather than assembling them naturally, or just not playing ay at all.
I think you’re going to run into more competitive combo types of text because when people go to an event and they plan on playing in a special event with a person of note in that venue then they’re bringing their best decks which are probably often their combo decks another cheesy things.
1) lower the starting life total to 30, 25, or even 20. This allows proactive decks to reign in combo decks, makes non-combo a more viable strategy, and reduces the power of stupid BS like necropotence. Maybe griselbrand could even come off the banlist, who knows.
2) ban the fast mana. Less important, but still. It creates so many nongames. Kill with fire please. Also it could be (slightly) more problematic with a lower life total, since aggro can have pretty insane starts off a ring or crypt.
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
Or playing combo in control shells to finish the game that is completely fine since you can't really win with snapcaster beats here
What is a problem is non-combo decks that run one or two infinite combos that randomly win games out of nowhere sometimes I either go full combo or no combo
UGR Wanderer
UGB Tasigur Control
URB Jeleva Storm
RW Gisela Control
I found it the full quote is http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19154&start=0
i've also long argued that embracing it makes for a more interactive game. if you know everyone is combo'ing off you're going to run more ways to stop those and if you're doing it yourself you're going to run more ways to protect your own. interactivity increases. it goes from being a 20 hour long pod where everyone lines up craw wurms like gentlemen to an actual game.
sheldon's views on commander... i've never agreed with them. he takes an approach that's very much do nothing. he's against just about everything that isn't just dudes lining up. its a very boring non-interactive way to play. that's his thing though, kitchen tables where nothing happens and eventually 90/90 hydra of bull***** gains trample and doesn't eat a doom blade.
its a totally different way to play, but its also baby's first edh game and that doesn't last very long. the natural progression of any group is to move toward winning. interacting with each other more. the very nature of the game and playing with the same people over a long period of times makes it an arms race. its not just an edh thing. even that 60 card casual group in college is going to find ways to beat that guy next week, or steve will get a new dragon for his dragons deck.
lean into it. stop fighting it.
edit: and yeah, you're gonna have a real bad time if you take his approach to edh and run into people who don't.
There is absolutely a difference in how you win.
If you win through resource denial, the game can drag on and get really boring
If you win through suddenly resolving a single spell that doesn't care about the game up to that point, it doesn't create a satisfying conclusion
If you win through building up a strong board position and killing everyone with it, that's what a lot of casual players would be more ok with
etc
The conclusion to the game is like a story, there can be good ways to end a story and bad ways to end a story.
And I find that when everyone is trying to combo off, the game becomes, well, just not a fun game to play. Boy I sure did love that game where my opponent spent 30 minutes digging through their deck with the paradox engine I tried to counter! You played broken mana rocks and cast godo on turn 3 and no one had a free counter to stop it, what a great game we are playing! Ad nauseum after the table spent their resources stopping the previous player from trying to win that turn? Why yes I do think that's fair to draw 30 cards for 5 mana at instant speed and then use those cards to end the game immediately.
In a better format, people should be able to make their decks more competitive without necessarily gravitating toward combo control. Every other format has a relatively diverse set of archetypes available at high levels of competition. But in commander, it's just a truism that competitive = combo. And that's very boring for those of us who aren't interested in playing combo.
I think the fault for this comes down to the rules. 40 life is really the primary problem. As long as there is 120 life to face down, combo will be the dominant competitive strategy by a country mile. If anything, 30 isn't far enough imo. I'd argue for 20. You still have 60 enemy life to deal with, not to mention 100 card singleton - modern-style burn isn't suddenly going to become viable. But tight, aggressive strategies might actually be able to pressure combo decks and force them to interact with them, at least in a semi-competitive scene.
Sure, some aggro decks will be obnoxiously powerful in a weaker meta - but that's already true of combo and control decks.
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
Commander is only a causal format in that it is a multiplayer one, I feel that people who wave that word around as a charm against certain kinds of decks are in the wrong.
Especially when a lot of the most powerful game changing additions to ssid format come directly out of official Commander product.
Your single track definition of Armageddon is also flawed having had it cast against me and by me multiple times I can tell you that how a card is played and how the mood around a table is, often much more important than how powerful the card is.
T-"But what Sheldon's saying here, I believe, is that he takes issue with people moving more and more towards using those infinite combos as the primary way of ending games overall, and those combos happening a little sooner every time.
A lot of my decks have an instant "I win" button for when the game's been going way too long and we need to wrap up, but nobody will concede, and that's fine- the issue is when people increasingly reach for that game-over button as the PRIMARY way to end every game, and reach for it sooner and sooner and sooner. Using a last-resort combo to end the game 2.5 hours in so you can all go eat something is way different than comboing off on turn 5 because you can"
-Sheldon "Yeah, what T said"
Not opposed to long involved games of magic, opposed to slogs.
Also the idea that if the opening comes up to play some cards in your deck and you choose not to is baffling to me, you put cards in deck to use them when the situation presents.
Unless you really don't care about winning, and your goal is...optimal game length(?)...then you're naturally going to want to be the first one to decide the game has gone into overtime, so you can "justify" using your combo to win.
Play to win. If that results in an uninteresting or unpleasant experience, then you need to fix your deck. Simple.
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
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion and say this ends up at straight cedh. Everyone trying to win with every card at their disposal.
CEDH has very limited strategies that actually work, because it's competitive. In the same way every other format has there best decks, edh is no exception.
It is not only possible, but very likely that none of these strategies are appealing.
What then? If the solution is to stop playing, obviously there is a problem with the format if people would rather quit than play it.
The answer is communication usually.
If this is tricky (flgs game with strangers) I suggest the french vanilla replacement strategy. Say you or your opponent is ending games with out of nowhere infinite combos or playing some longwinded wincon then next game replace the demoralising card in the deck with a french vanilla creature that matches it's colour and casting cost (If an X spell default to 1 cmc)
So Laboratory Maniac could become Phantom Warrior or Paradox Engine becomes Mantis Engine.
I say french vanilla but I mean anything in the draft chaff box you usually find in the store (or bring your own replacement if you know it can be a troublesome card). Your deck only has one wincon and it's an infinite combo? (swap out the tutor, or other card that makes it go off efficiently.)
Mr Barrin this Cube is on Fire!! - http://www.cubetutor.com/cubeblog/80149
WG Kei Takahashi: Is in Charge Now !? (EDH) WG
But I think if people play against each other long enough and follow the "combo when it's been long enough" philosophy, it will naturally pull towards cEDH as people are motivated to combo earlier and earlier. Which is one of many reasons why I think that philosophy sucks. If you don't think combo winning is a fun way to end a game, then don't put it in your deck. Duh.
And I'll reiterate my point from earlier - a big problem at the core of EDH isn't just that combo is effective, it's that that combo in essentially the only effective way to win in a highly competitive setting. The variety of strategies in cEDH sucks. Reducing the life total could do major work to help to change that.
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
i hear this a lot from less experienced aggro players, i don't hear it from ones that are prepared with ways to protect the monster they've created, their swarm, or ways to disrupt combopants over there.
okay... but like... the game still ends. that's the point. people say they're in it for the experience, and to create a story, but you're not. the nature of the game is to win. no one likes losing. even a super casual vorthos deck is going to eventually move along to be able to keep up if all it does is lose.
look if your opponent combos out and you're sitting there making him play it out, that's on you. not them. my experience with combo has been vastly different than yours. where when almost everyone is packing some form of infinite combo, everyone else steps up and runs ways to disrupt it. they've been far more enjoyable games for everyone involved so long as everyone is on the same page because you're interacting with each other. its not just sit there and watch the sliver player turn sideways every turn. you've having counter wars, you're digging for answers, you're keeping mana up, you're actively thinking about what other players are doing rather than just what you're doing. i can't stress that point enough.
edit:
i think this is the biggest point for me. as long as everyone is on the same page, as long as everyone accepts that combo happens...
you're actively thinking about what other players are doing rather than just what you're doing
once that starts happening the game becomes more interactive, people run ways to stop your combo, they run ways to protect their combo, they run ways to disrupt your board to get their team through, etc etc.
i see a lot of the time aggro players *****ing they can't keep up, but they aren't running the ways to stop a combo, or disrupt control, or they blow their load on 10 slivers and no way to give haste.
the whole thing breaks down to interaction, and games where everyone is responding to each other rather than just play card pass play card pass attack pass attack pass... are far more enjoyable.
people gripe about certain archetypes, but they remember those decks and those games. they come back next week (in a perfect world) sporting answers to what made them lose.
yes, it creates an arms race... welcome to 26 ******* years of magic: the gathering.
But I have an extensive collection and a lot of deckbuilding experience, so I try to differentiate my experience from the experience of the man on the street. When I see other people in my LGS/playgroup playing anything remotely close to aggro, they're winning a very low percentage of games because of the natural disadvantages the strategy has in a multiplayer format, in addition to the high life totals. Properly aggressive decks (i.e. decks where goblin guide is a powerful card) are basically nonexistent in any meta. The decks that are winning are either playing a combo, or some other win-the-game-right-now spell or synergy.
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
I guess I do it wrong with my Akiri, Line-Slinger voltron deck, because as I stated up thread I run the combo of Godo, Bandit Warlord and Helm of the Host but I rarely go for it instead choosing to go with different equipment to put on Akiri in an effort to at least kill or do serious damage to one player.
Full disclosure I'm in the same play group as the T I quoted. Our group runs the street from casualish decks to lab manic and infinite turns to aristocrats. But We've been playing together off and on for years.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Bingo! And without banning an entire expansions worth of cards, there is nothing that can really ever be done about it. It’s the unfortunate nature of the format.
Your whole central premise is wrong. I think you are taking "I only care about winning" and transferring that to "everyone only cares about winning"
I have taken tons of cards out of decks that I thought weren't fun to play against, even if they win more games. I took apart miakeus because it comboed out to consistently. I don't run exquisite blood/sanguine bond in karlov even with enchantment tutors because it's a boring way to end the game. I avoid mass land destruction in almost every deck I make deliberately. I don't have sage of hours in ezuri or mairsil despite being the most efficient way to close out a game with both of those commanders. Lots of examples of cards that would absolutely make my decks win more, and the cards instead sit in my binder because it makes the game worse if I include them.
And if you are trying to win, no, aggro is not a viable strategy. Go ahead and run your disruption, but my combo based decks have access to all the same disruption, and my threats win the game instantly regardless of the opponents, while you have to deal a substantially higher amount of damage.
You know in Star Wars when Leia says "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."? Apply that to managing a format. The more you tighten your grip and try to squeeze down on a specific playstyle, the more players you lose. They'll flee in droves, and you'll be left with nothing.
Commander and EDH have always been primarily a social format. They emphasize the social aspect. Yes, we have games we dislike (I just had two awful ones this week - one where someone dumped a bunch of mana rocks and took three extra turns before my third turn and another with a combo deck playing solitaire during a 20 minute turn as he slowly ignored everybody and gradually pulled out a win). But communication is key. They know now that we don't appreciate those types of games. We know that they do. What we do from here is up to us. According to you, you would cater to one group and tell the others to get lost and play a different format. Man, I almost want to sig this. So true!
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Maybe Edric is okay, but chaining extra turns generally gets the job done. Not exactly my preferred method of winning though.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
Combos without the support of a dedicated deck on the other hand, well, I can't really see a problem. Yes, sure, they win the game, but so do all sorts of things in this format. What's the difference in losing to a combo on turn 15 and losing to some fatties punching you on turn 15? Despite the claims, combos rarely "come from nowhere" - there's usually plenty of development and play before someone will be in a position to combo, plus there's all sorts of non-infinite things that can go from nonthreatening to lethal very quickly, even more so if you're simply looking at lethal for one player. I've got a Titania, Protector of Argoth deck that regularly goes from untapping with nothing but the general and lands on the board to killing the table that turn. Nothing infinite there (there is technically a way to go infinite in the deck, but I have to draw my deck first, so...), but is there any real difference in the impact?
And for the record, my decks range from Karador Spirit Tribal to Tasigur Sceptre combo, so you can see I love the janky highly "casual" side of the format as well as the competitive one.
This makes no sense. The ethos of Commander is 'build casual, play competitive'. You don't put combos in your deck and not play them. It makes the game worthless.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
That’s fine. I think the point is people have been moving ever so closer to just getting to their combos ASAP, rather than assembling them naturally, or just not playing ay at all.