You seem to not be separating dedicated combo decks (tutoring for pieces ASAP, running cheap counters, assembling purposely early to avoid interaction) from decks that have combos. I am speaking of them in two veins, but people who don't care about other people's fun tend to assemble and enjoy the more dedicated ones because its easier to defeat 4-5 people with combo as opposed to 'Craterhoofed Avenger' which takes turns to assemble(you are not overunning an entire table without a bunch of lands etc , multiple combat steps). Dedicated combo decks aren't 'too strong' all the time, they just operate on a different time-table and interaction set than a lot of people care for.
I want to say something about moving the goalposts, but I did miss the post by Sheldon that I'm going to go back and address now.
And to clarify, when I'm talking about the toxicity of combo, I mean dedicated combo decks. Sorry if that wasn't clear here, even though I've clarified the difference a number of times (for the future, I'll try to make sure I use both words).
On one hand, that just brings us back to a power level issue, making dedicated combo pretty indistinguishable from Staxing the table in the first 2 turns or ye old turn 1 flipped Erayo. (Though all these things share a few specific tools in common, but there's no use getting into that.)
On the other hand, I don't actually believe you were only talking about dedicated combo decks in the article. The part where you said combo players don't care about other players was in response to a question asking about the attitude towards combo "even if the combo is complex to pull off." That person was clearly not talking about "tap Hermit Druid, win" when they asked that question, and your "you like what you like, but everyone else might not" did nothing at all to establish that you were talking about anything specifically. Combined with the other statement where you say you refuse to play any infinites in any of your decks, it becomes really hard not to read that as you hating all infinite combos all the time.
Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like, that's cool. It clearly hasn't impacted the format as you've been unbanning more infinites than you're banning as of late. Also, I think a few rounds with Zedruu might soften your opinion (you're not going to be upset about a combo that is pulled out of the deck by an animatedMirrorweaved Possibility Storm). But reading between the lines of that one specific question and answer, it's basically:
Dear Sheldon,
I work really hard on my goofy combos that barely ever work and then my friends are mean because they think all infinites are bad.
- Stranger
Yes playing power above your groups power level will cause bad games, regardless of deck types. Thats not at all what's being discussed here.
Exactly, that's the problem. The only reason a combo deck would cause bad games is that it's to powerful for the play group. There's nothing inherently game ruining about an infinite combo; it's all a matter of circumstance. You can say it invalidates the rest of the game, but that isn't true. Your inability to handle my combo because you lack the right removal isn't really different than your inability to block Craterhoofed Avenger plants because you lack the board presence. Now if it happens with a speed and efficiency you can't keep up with, there's a problem, but that's not a problem of combo, that's just their deck being to strong.
So, unlike something like a bunch of entering Hamletback Goliaths where the optimal solution is a zigzagging method, these Ackermann stages are more of a batch process.
So, if we could theoretically resolve an Ackermann stage of a large quantity of some mana using it to make some larger quantity of permanents, and then use those permanents to make the same type of mana proportional to the output, but only after the full resolution of the previous stage and only a discreet number of cycles, we could functionally have the equivalent of one Ackermann stage for each time we could do that and then blow the current damage output out of the water, provided the number of cycles is greater than 25?
Quick question for the folks who actually fully understand this math. When doing multiple Ackermann stages, do you get maximum output by climbing up and down the stages repeatedly, or do you resolve one stage completely before beginning the next? For example, if you had a green stage leading into a red one, that would mean the green stage is building up a reservoir of whatever resource is cycled in the red stage. Do you start acting in the red level as soon as you have some of whatever that resource is, or do you use up all the green resource to have one big quantity before doing anything with the red stage. I ask because intuitively, my brain thinks climbing up and down the ladder is better, but remembering back to the discovery of the Ackermann combo, it was having a big pot of green in the first place that let Elvish Spirit Guide do anything.
To make a request of you: Please try to win. If you want random fun times caused by a non-participant in the game, use Planeschase. Give yourself the opportunity to win. Build your deck so that you can do something with these tools. I've played a lot of the things you're looking for (see deck in signature) and the most important thing is that you still try. People can enjoy the jigsaw puzzle of playing through something like Possibility Storm or Confusion in the Ranks, but only if it's actually a competition. Playing Possibility Storm and declaring that your entire purpose at the table will only foster resentment from anyone expecting you to actually play the game.
Yes these are generalizations, and not aimed at anyone who pulls out a combo deck now and again. It's dedicated combo all the time in the guise of 'I play what I want in EDH everyone needs to level up'. That thought process is toxic, and tends to be combo players.
And by my observations, I have never seen the person you're describing. I have seen that attitude with basically every other strategy in the game, but I have never seen it with combo. When I'm mad that Iona beat me, I'm told to run colorless removal. When I'm mad that Sol Ring outpaced me by a mile, I'm told it's a staple and I should be able to answer it. When I'm mad some classless two card infinite killed me, the person apologizes and offers to use a different deck. Congratulations to the anti-combo police, you have successfully made all the Johnies of the world feel deep shame for playing the deck they like. Now if you would please take a step back and realize that playing too powerfully for your play group to handle you isn't limited to or encompassing all of one style of play, that would be excellent.
1) It translates "people do something I don't like" to "those people don't care about the feelings of others," which is an incredibly self-centered view of a multiplayer game. I personally don't want to play against a deck that can recur Mana Drain with Deadeye and E-Witness, but I'm not going to tell Sheldon his Intet deck is toxic to the format.
2) It ignores the fact that there's a lot more in the format that people don't like (land destruction, prophet of kruphix, etc.) than just combos that should be pointed to as people not caring about the fun of the rest of the table. I don't like getting killed with Mike and Trike, but I also don't like playing against Iona, and if I can't handle these things, I can talk to the player using then about toning it down a little just the same. It's just ridiculous that one can think a social contract is fine for controlling certain cards within the context of a playgroup but as soon as someone deliberately uses mutiple cards to make a loop they're the Dick Dastardly of magic who will throw people under the bus to win.
3) Amending "based on my observations" does not make something immune to criticism. Sure, if you say something as only your opinion, I can't attack it for not being factual enough, but then I'm forced to attack you as someone without credible opinions. I'd far rather ignore the "by my observation" part and have a real conversation.
Should players look at a Teferi or BloodChief's Ascension on the board with suspicion? Yes. Do they? Often not. And I personally feel nothing but embarrassment if I then drop Knowledge Pool or Mindcrank on these unsuspecting people. (Player One: Wait, what did he do? Player Two: Were dead, he killed us. Me: Sheepishly scooping up my cars.)
I generally don't play combos that are that straight forward, but even so, I tend to be very forward about my cards in play when my opponents lack experience playing against me. When I know I'm close to critical, I will often actively warn people that they're going to have to deal with me. When I'm playing with the friends I usually play with, they don't need to be told not to let me stick Mind Over Matter or Dream Halls. When I'm playing with new opponents, I don't want to feel like I stole the game, because most of the time people have the answer to me available if they just know that they'll need to use it.
The worst feeling game is when someone plays something like Bloodchief Ascension and then finishes the combo and the person across the table is just like "I've got a Natualize, but I didn't know that would just kill me like that, and now I'm tapped out and can't stop it."
Yeah, that bit about combo is supreme BS. It's 100% a matter of power level. Zedruu is a combo deck for me, but is probably the most interactive thing I've ever built. The entire game is spent slapping down things that impact everyone and create rediculous situations, but I obviously don't care what anyone else is doing because I want to be able to end the game once my advantage is absolute rather than have people sit and despair for a time or two around the table because I have to swing to kill them or it isn't Kosher.
Combo is just the right way for certain decks to climax. If it's ruining every game, it's not inherently because it's a combo, it's because that particular combo deck is too powerful for the playgroup.
I'm not entirely sure these enchantments are comparable in the first place. Lurking Predators is far more efficient, but it puts your opponents in control of it. If they have the advantage over you, they can just beat you up without casting spells. If they have something like an Ugin in hand, they can deliberately push you into overextending. Wild Pair leaves you in control, but doesn't hit nearly the quantity of creatures. Lurking Predators wants to be in a deck with a high quantity of splashy things you want for free (like Mayeal). Wild Pair doesn't need many creatures in the deck to function, but it does need carefully matched power/toughness friends (oh hi, Sakura-tribe Elder, I didn't know you were friends with Gigantomancer).
Basically, I don't think it's really a choice between the two, I think your deck is going to dictate which of the two works properly for you. And it's probably going to be Lurking Predators.
White Knight is an insult on the internet that is used when you are harassing someone and someone else calls you out on it. Never quite understood how that could be a bad thing. The card sure is lackluster in EDH, though.
If someone is calling you a White Knight as an insult, it's specifically for the situation where you are coming to the defense of someone else (usually a woman) and using that as an excuse to attack someone. It's most appropriately used when the person being defended didn't actually need any help.
OT: I'd consider putting some knight tribal into a deck if Wizards printed me a very specific fake general I made up myself. That is probably not going to happen.
Absolutely! And I love being able to send out that stuff to people who want it, and use the points to get the stuff I want. It's the most reliable win/win I've ever found in MTG.
I'm pretty sure the most reliable win/win in Magic for me is just giving cards I'll never use to my friends for free. It's not as though I'm going to sell any of the things I'm giving them, and since I need people to play with, I get more enjoyment out of my own cards by letting them own them instead.
Wasn't there some hugely complicated combo that you can do with this card and some similarly awful ones?
No, no there isn't. You're thinking of the deck "Turbo Great Wall," which Donates a Jackal Pup, Muzzles it, makes it unblockable with Aysen Highway and Balduvian Shaman changing "white creatures" to "red creatures" (also it obviously plays a Plains), makes it attack every turn with Grand Melee, puts Farrel's Mantle on the Jackal Pup so that it targets a creature whenever it attacks (which is does target, even if they choose to not use the ability), then puts Coalition Flag on Mossdog so that Farrel's Mantle has to target Mossdog which puts a +1/+1 counter on it, and then uses Chronatog to eat all it's turns so it doesn't have to pay the upkeep cost Balduvian Shaman put on Aysen Highway. Then, after 19 turns of this, the Mossdog is 20/20, it takes 1 turn to play Great Wall to make Jackal Pup blockable again and plays Obelisk of Undoing to bounce the Muzzle so that on the next attack, Mossdog can block Jackal Pup which kills the opponent. (Obviously this is in a 60 card, 20 life format. You'd have to wait 39 turns in EDH)
That is not a combo. For that to work, your opponent has to literally do nothing the entire game. And it doesn't actually make Great Wall useful, it just uses it as a solution to a problem it made itself (Aysen Highway), which is also a solution to a problem it made itself (Grand Melee). That deck is just a demonstration of how many useless cards from magic's history can be strung together to have the net killing efficiency of 1 Invisible Stalker going solo. It's funny, but I'm not dignifying that with the title "combo."
Is there any other use for that card besides tucking it under an O-Ring and then using a nuke?
Zedruu can do it.
1. Get Mind Over Matter, Gilded Lotus, and Barren Glory in play.
2. Get more cards in hand than permanents.
3. Take an extra turn.
4. Donate all my other permanents.
5. Win.
I want to say something about moving the goalposts, but I did miss the post by Sheldon that I'm going to go back and address now.
On one hand, that just brings us back to a power level issue, making dedicated combo pretty indistinguishable from Staxing the table in the first 2 turns or ye old turn 1 flipped Erayo. (Though all these things share a few specific tools in common, but there's no use getting into that.)
On the other hand, I don't actually believe you were only talking about dedicated combo decks in the article. The part where you said combo players don't care about other players was in response to a question asking about the attitude towards combo "even if the combo is complex to pull off." That person was clearly not talking about "tap Hermit Druid, win" when they asked that question, and your "you like what you like, but everyone else might not" did nothing at all to establish that you were talking about anything specifically. Combined with the other statement where you say you refuse to play any infinites in any of your decks, it becomes really hard not to read that as you hating all infinite combos all the time.
Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like, that's cool. It clearly hasn't impacted the format as you've been unbanning more infinites than you're banning as of late. Also, I think a few rounds with Zedruu might soften your opinion (you're not going to be upset about a combo that is pulled out of the deck by an animated Mirrorweaved Possibility Storm). But reading between the lines of that one specific question and answer, it's basically:
Dear Sheldon,
I work really hard on my goofy combos that barely ever work and then my friends are mean because they think all infinites are bad.
- Stranger
Dear Stranger,
Good. You deserve it.
- Sheldon
Exactly, that's the problem. The only reason a combo deck would cause bad games is that it's to powerful for the play group. There's nothing inherently game ruining about an infinite combo; it's all a matter of circumstance. You can say it invalidates the rest of the game, but that isn't true. Your inability to handle my combo because you lack the right removal isn't really different than your inability to block Craterhoofed Avenger plants because you lack the board presence. Now if it happens with a speed and efficiency you can't keep up with, there's a problem, but that's not a problem of combo, that's just their deck being to strong.
So, if we could theoretically resolve an Ackermann stage of a large quantity of some mana using it to make some larger quantity of permanents, and then use those permanents to make the same type of mana proportional to the output, but only after the full resolution of the previous stage and only a discreet number of cycles, we could functionally have the equivalent of one Ackermann stage for each time we could do that and then blow the current damage output out of the water, provided the number of cycles is greater than 25?
And by my observations, I have never seen the person you're describing. I have seen that attitude with basically every other strategy in the game, but I have never seen it with combo. When I'm mad that Iona beat me, I'm told to run colorless removal. When I'm mad that Sol Ring outpaced me by a mile, I'm told it's a staple and I should be able to answer it. When I'm mad some classless two card infinite killed me, the person apologizes and offers to use a different deck. Congratulations to the anti-combo police, you have successfully made all the Johnies of the world feel deep shame for playing the deck they like. Now if you would please take a step back and realize that playing too powerfully for your play group to handle you isn't limited to or encompassing all of one style of play, that would be excellent.
1) It translates "people do something I don't like" to "those people don't care about the feelings of others," which is an incredibly self-centered view of a multiplayer game. I personally don't want to play against a deck that can recur Mana Drain with Deadeye and E-Witness, but I'm not going to tell Sheldon his Intet deck is toxic to the format.
2) It ignores the fact that there's a lot more in the format that people don't like (land destruction, prophet of kruphix, etc.) than just combos that should be pointed to as people not caring about the fun of the rest of the table. I don't like getting killed with Mike and Trike, but I also don't like playing against Iona, and if I can't handle these things, I can talk to the player using then about toning it down a little just the same. It's just ridiculous that one can think a social contract is fine for controlling certain cards within the context of a playgroup but as soon as someone deliberately uses mutiple cards to make a loop they're the Dick Dastardly of magic who will throw people under the bus to win.
3) Amending "based on my observations" does not make something immune to criticism. Sure, if you say something as only your opinion, I can't attack it for not being factual enough, but then I'm forced to attack you as someone without credible opinions. I'd far rather ignore the "by my observation" part and have a real conversation.
I generally don't play combos that are that straight forward, but even so, I tend to be very forward about my cards in play when my opponents lack experience playing against me. When I know I'm close to critical, I will often actively warn people that they're going to have to deal with me. When I'm playing with the friends I usually play with, they don't need to be told not to let me stick Mind Over Matter or Dream Halls. When I'm playing with new opponents, I don't want to feel like I stole the game, because most of the time people have the answer to me available if they just know that they'll need to use it.
The worst feeling game is when someone plays something like Bloodchief Ascension and then finishes the combo and the person across the table is just like "I've got a Natualize, but I didn't know that would just kill me like that, and now I'm tapped out and can't stop it."
Combo is just the right way for certain decks to climax. If it's ruining every game, it's not inherently because it's a combo, it's because that particular combo deck is too powerful for the playgroup.
Basically, I don't think it's really a choice between the two, I think your deck is going to dictate which of the two works properly for you. And it's probably going to be Lurking Predators.
If someone is calling you a White Knight as an insult, it's specifically for the situation where you are coming to the defense of someone else (usually a woman) and using that as an excuse to attack someone. It's most appropriately used when the person being defended didn't actually need any help.
OT: I'd consider putting some knight tribal into a deck if Wizards printed me a very specific fake general I made up myself. That is probably not going to happen.
I'm pretty sure the most reliable win/win in Magic for me is just giving cards I'll never use to my friends for free. It's not as though I'm going to sell any of the things I'm giving them, and since I need people to play with, I get more enjoyment out of my own cards by letting them own them instead.
No, no there isn't. You're thinking of the deck "Turbo Great Wall," which Donates a Jackal Pup, Muzzles it, makes it unblockable with Aysen Highway and Balduvian Shaman changing "white creatures" to "red creatures" (also it obviously plays a Plains), makes it attack every turn with Grand Melee, puts Farrel's Mantle on the Jackal Pup so that it targets a creature whenever it attacks (which is does target, even if they choose to not use the ability), then puts Coalition Flag on Mossdog so that Farrel's Mantle has to target Mossdog which puts a +1/+1 counter on it, and then uses Chronatog to eat all it's turns so it doesn't have to pay the upkeep cost Balduvian Shaman put on Aysen Highway. Then, after 19 turns of this, the Mossdog is 20/20, it takes 1 turn to play Great Wall to make Jackal Pup blockable again and plays Obelisk of Undoing to bounce the Muzzle so that on the next attack, Mossdog can block Jackal Pup which kills the opponent. (Obviously this is in a 60 card, 20 life format. You'd have to wait 39 turns in EDH)
That is not a combo. For that to work, your opponent has to literally do nothing the entire game. And it doesn't actually make Great Wall useful, it just uses it as a solution to a problem it made itself (Aysen Highway), which is also a solution to a problem it made itself (Grand Melee). That deck is just a demonstration of how many useless cards from magic's history can be strung together to have the net killing efficiency of 1 Invisible Stalker going solo. It's funny, but I'm not dignifying that with the title "combo."
Zedruu can do it.
1. Get Mind Over Matter, Gilded Lotus, and Barren Glory in play.
2. Get more cards in hand than permanents.
3. Take an extra turn.
4. Donate all my other permanents.
5. Win.