No infinite combos? Huh?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on July 15, 2015, 4:51 p.m. by ComradeJim270
It's been interesting seeing people talk about the little house rules and agreements their playgroups have. EDH is a social format, obviously... everyone's going to have their own way of doing it. But there's one statement I see sometimes though that I just can't wrap my head around.
"My playgroup doesn't allow/frowns on infinite combos"
Wait... what? This I don't get. Not allowing mass LD, I get (even though I disagree). Prohibiting, say... infect, I get. But a whole format of big plays, and you don't allow some of the craziest, most out-there plays in all of Magic? That's weird. I can't imagine EDH without these combos. It sounds like it would get stale and dull.
Hey, if playing sans infinite combos is your thing... cool. But I don't get it. Could someone explain to me how cutting off an entire avenue of play and hobbling an archetype is supposed to improve things?
Not saying it's wrong if you do this, I'm just curious where it's coming from.
It's low-power playcircles who dislike losing to things that they can't interrupt without counterplay. It's a somewhat asinine thing simply because it takes away a HUGE portion of deckbuilding, but prevents turn 1-4 wins. It also helps newer players/Timmies to feel good.
I disagree, but w/e.
July 15, 2015 5:02 p.m.
Honestly seeing someone go infinite in multiple games get boring. But it's also interesting seeing complicated infinite combos happen. Like Krenko, Mob Boss + Mana Echoes + Skirk Prospector +something to give haste. That's a cool combo to watch.
There shouldn't be any reason to ban infinite combos since most of them aren't format warping. If I was playing someone who just started edh, maybe I'd avoid casting it on the early turns. But if I couldn't cast them, or see them played, it'd suck.
July 15, 2015 5:10 p.m.
I agree with meecht about inf combos being ok if its clunky. But unless your playing competitevly, what makes it fun to tutor for the same two pieces to pull off a inf combo every game? EDH is meant to be much more random than other formats.
July 15, 2015 5:14 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #6
@meecht: I suppose. I mean, I have a friend who runs Triskelion in his Mikaeus, the Unhallowed deck. To me it just makes things more exciting. The first time it happened I went "Wait, how are we dead?". The second time it was awesome. I suppose I didn't think about this because there's almost always someone at my table who could potentially answer combos like these.
@JA14732: That makes sense, and I probably didn't think of it because I just dived feet-first into a playgroup of much more experienced players with much stronger decks. They pulled some punches at first, but the expectation was always that I'd get better with time and they'd do that less and less. That is exactly what happened.
It seems counterproductive to me. If you just ban the combos, you're not learning anything. You're not growing as a player and are limiting experiences. Seems like the more reasonable thing to do is to have the more skilled players hold back a bit and take the time to explain how this stuff works and how to handle it.
@dbpunk: That's my attitude. I love seeing crazy combos. I love doing them. I wouldn't want to be in a playgroup that doesn't allow them, but I've had people hold back when I was really new to the game and I do the same for others in that situation. No banning needed.
July 15, 2015 5:16 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #7
See, the issue is that some playgroups like more back and forth. It's really boring if someone just happens to draw one card and says "Anyone have a counterspell? Ok, game over." The combo itself may be cool, but the fact that it ends everything isn't all that great. In my playgroup, we do frown on infinite combos that end the game. Something like Deadeye Navigator and Palinchron is ok though, so long as they aren't consistently using it to instantly end the game. If every game is just people tutoring and countering until one person goes "Oops, I win", it could be fun. If only one person is tutoring and then just wins on turn 4-5 every single game, it's just unfun.
Basically some of us enjoy the hour long slogfests with giant swings of power and lots of interaction. We also like the cool combos that do weird and wacky stuff, but don't win. Deadeye Navigator and Zealous Conscripts is fun. Deadeye Navigator and Archeomancer with a Time Warp is just a snooze fest.
July 15, 2015 5:27 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #8
I suppose, lemmingllama. Maybe it's just that we don't have anyone doing that in my playgroup. Everything's pretty well kept in check. Sometimes, somebody has an answer to a combo like that. Sometimes they don't. So I have not had the experience of someone pulling off consistent early wins.
July 15, 2015 5:34 p.m.
Consistent early wins aren't really something that's welcome in most playgroups though. If you have a deck that makes every game end in 15 minutes, then where's the fun? Games get more fun when there is a lot of interaction and a lot of funny things happening. Plus if someone is pulling off that kind of bullshit combo (Archaeomancer + Deadeye Navigator + Temporal Manipulation ) that's when it should be looked into how to challenge that combo specifically.
July 15, 2015 5:51 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #10
That's what I'm saying, though. I don't see those very often. I see plenty of decks that can win in a few turns. I rarely see them actually do it. I think that's really what it comes down to; my own experience has been with people who have the attitude that when a particular deck is dominant, you just step up your game.
July 15, 2015 6:01 p.m.
As someone who skirts the line of casual versus competetive I would like to offer my insight.
I have 2 different decks. My playgroup sets the trend of the evening at the start.
1 is a hyper competetive, no holds barred combo kill group where we can easily play 2 games in 30 min or less. When we feel like it.
The other is a bunch of derpy goof off stuff that we just want to bullshit and play while drinking ourselves silly and see who makes the most play mistakes. For these evenings the most efficient inf combos are not allowed. To make the games last longer
Just depends on what kind of mood we're in.
July 15, 2015 7:55 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #12
True, but sometimes people don't want to mainboard Choke and Boil to deal with the blue player. I'd rather have a deck that is powerful against any deck, than a deck that can compete against only certain other decks.
Also I personally think it's ok to have some infinites, more so as a way to close games after they have gone on too long. If your deck consists of ramp, tutors, counterspells, and combo and nothing else, it's going to play out the exact same way every game and be very boring. Also no-one likes having to run counterspells just to deal with that one silly player who always wants to win. Having an infinite is fine, but having too many ways of finding it is just unnecessary.
July 15, 2015 7:56 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #13
Well... yeah. I mean I run a combo deck, but it has multiple ways to combo off and end the game. This seems like a common design philosophy where I play; build in redundancies. It makes the deck stronger and the game more interesting.
And it's not as though only blue has has access to infinite combos. I've seem them done in every color, and answered by every color. You don't need Choke, Boil or a brace of counterspells to answer a lot of these things. For example if you've got an artifact-based combo Krosan Grip will do nicely.
I'm strictly casual with this format. But I think if a playgroup told me that infinite combos were out, I doubt I'd play with them very long. It's not like mass LD, where I can just go "ok, I'll take out Obliterate". It's an entire style and technique of play being tossed out the window because that one guy was a douchebag with it.
Baby out with the bathwater, there.
July 15, 2015 8:41 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #14
As a combo player in all formats it goes without saying that I am on the side of allowing them always. All combo decks are weak to disruption. If you don't want to interact with a player by disrupting them; don't be surprised if they don't want to interact with you either and just win.
I personally hate long drawn out games where the winner is determined by who draws into a significant threat quickest after the Nth board wipe. Games determined by chance rather than deck building and play skill are boring and you might as well just play high-low with spin downs instead of spending money on cards.
July 15, 2015 8:42 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #15
@Gidgetimer: Yes, exactly! That's how I've always felt. Well, more or less. I can enjoy long and drawn out games, but there needs to be a sense of progression. Stalemates or topdeck battles are a huge headache.
July 15, 2015 8:49 p.m.
OP_Magikarp says... #16
I have an infinite combo with Pemmin's Aura + Pentad Prism + Vorel of the Hull Clade to get infinite mana. I've only gotten it a few times but every time, my group has thought it was so cool and there's no hate for it. I guess it's just part of your group and how competitive everyone is.
July 15, 2015 9:09 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #17
I don't know that it's even that competitive, it's just a well-balanced group. Someone combos off... the aggro players go "Ahh, so close!", the combo players go "that was so cool!", and the control players go "damn, if I'd had just one more island untapped!".
Also:
Timmy: "Next time, I will crush you!"
Johnny: "... so cool."
Spike: "Can't win 'em all."
It's not a particularly common experience for someone to go "that was bullshit, I don't want to play anymore" and if they do they tend to get over it pretty soon. This strikes me as a healthier attitude.
July 15, 2015 9:18 p.m.
It's not just infinite combos, it's any extremely powerful strategy. Also, there are a some absurdly powerful and ridiculously-advantageous cards like:
The list continues, but these are basically "kill on sight" cards (or in the case of Tooth and Nail, obviously, counter on sight). Getting them off the field immediately is your primary goal when your opponents play them. They are not alone infinite combos, but they alone are incredibly strong.
The real issue is:
- Starting from turn 1, players want to know that their decks stand a chance to win.
- It is desirable to the player that their deck have secret tricks that other players don't know about, and to reveal these secret tricks during the game as somewhat of an expression of their creativity. Seeing their deck's design work makes that player enjoy playing the game.
- When any extremely powerful strategy (including but not limited to infinite combos) defeats a player earlier than they felt that their deck even had a chance to fight back or do anything, that player is going to feel uncomfortable with the power level of the superior deck.
Unfortunately, EDH has an extremely widespread learning curve. There exists players at every strand of the spectrum between brand new player with a preconstructed deck, to a long time player and collector of the game who has invested thousands of dollars into Magic and his decks reflect that. As the more seasoned player with the more competitive deck, it is up to you to do one of two things.
- Water down your deck to make it less competitive, thus making it a more fair matchup against lesser opponents.
- Help the lesser opponent realize the weaknesses in their strategy and help spice up their decks with stronger tools to match the power level of your deck.
Not doing either of these two things is a lose-lose situation. Your lesser opponents will have less fun playing against you, and you will not feel challenged playing against them. As a result, both parties progress closer to being bored of the game.
July 15, 2015 9:42 p.m. Edited.
ComradeJim270 says... #19
Excellent point, -Logician.
Almost all the cards you named do make appearances in my playgroup. Omniscience and Prophet of Kruphix are kind of regulars. That's a consideration in deckbuilding.
I've definitely felt the impact of going up against superior decks. That's actually the case more often than not. I've found most people will do exactly what you advise when asked, and I do the same for those who are outclassed by my decks. The other thing I will do is deliberately misplay to give those opponents more opportunity to win.
That seems like it should just be basic courtesy.
July 15, 2015 9:53 p.m.
Comboing off gets my blood boiling when I'm in the mood for it. Seeing everything fall into place carries a certain sense of satisfaction.
Especially if it's a combo I came up with. Probably not the first person to notice it but the first to actually make it a psuedo wincon in a deck.
Infinite mana and Sydri, Galvanic Genius Deadeye Navigator, Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas and Mycosynth Lattice lets me + tezzie infinitely and basically just sift through the deck to get whatever artifact I want/need. Extremely difficult to time right and you have to stack the abilities correctly or it falls apart. It's very easy to disrupt and requires a lot of cards of course but because i don't just outright win, my more casual group doesn't care and laughs as they watch me try not to mess up the stack.
July 15, 2015 10:10 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #21
As long as there is someone to interact with I don't mind going long. What I hate is decks that achieve a hard lock with no win condition and the basic idea that building and rebuilding huge board states is fun. I want to play a strategy card game, not sim city with disasters turned to max.
July 15, 2015 10:16 p.m.
fluffybunnypants ~ Gidgetimer may have just given us another entry for the wall with comment #20
July 15, 2015 10:24 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #23
Oh oh, what wall? Is it one of your walls? I want to see where I shall be immortalized.
July 15, 2015 11:13 p.m.
Seeing fluffybunnypants' Wall of Fame is more than just fun. It's an experience. It's like losing your virginity to Helen of Sparta, Marilyn Monroe and Kate Upton all at the same time, except substituting the sex and pretty women for 'Goyfs and gnarlicide's poor life choices.
July 15, 2015 11:54 p.m.
JA14732 ~ you may have just given us another. Lol.
Where are you fluffybunnypants? Lol
July 16, 2015 12:19 a.m.
Both work. It's the same person, just depending on whether or not Helen went with Paris willingly or was abducted with Aphrodite's influence.
July 16, 2015 8:34 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #30
But what if I don't want to play blue so I can counter an entwined Tooth and Nail? What if I don't want to pump my deck full of kill spells to try to counter any creature based combo? What if I just want to make a silly themed deck that can sometimes randomly win, but in order to even have the slightest chance for that, the game has to go on at least 7 turns?
As Epochalyptik always preaches, Commander is a social format. The playgroups should regulate themselves, therefore if you don't like what your playgroup allows and does not, maybe you should find a playgroup that suits your playstyle a bit more?
Me personally I like the "battlecruiser style" that is intended by the rules committee. Having big and splashy creatures and having to make relevant attack and block decisions is very much the strategic card game I love. Someone ending the game out of pretty much nowhere, while everyone else is having fun casting "normal" creatures and spells is just no fun for me. Games should be interactive imho, not be a race for "the first to combo out". Mind you, I think playing combo is totally valid in any kind of competitive 1-on-1, but I very much dislike it for any casual game of Magic.
TLDR: find a playgroup that likes/allows combo decks.
July 16, 2015 12:01 p.m.
RussischerZar says... #31
Another consideration is budget. High powered 1-2 card combos including the best tutors that the format has tend to cost a lot and if a playgroup wants to be open to newcomers that just have cards they randomly pulled at prereleases and FNMs, it might be a thing of foresight to disallow "OP" things like infinite combos.
July 16, 2015 12:09 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #32
@RussischerZar:Oh yeah, the budget thing makes a lot of sense!
As for my own experience, my playgroup has a pretty wide spread of deck types. We've got the battlecruiser decks, but plenty of combo and heavy control ones too. I enjoy the variety and it works out pretty well for me. What had me confused was why someone would outright prohibit infinite combos. That's much clearer after the points made in this thread.
July 16, 2015 12:46 p.m.
My playgroup, which is generally me and 3 other friends, have very varied deck types. And many time if we know one friend may play one deck versus another, we can switch them around. The thing is we also are pretty budget. But many of my friends, and me included, run some kind of combo that can win games, with some going infinite.
July 16, 2015 3:05 p.m.
The store in my hometown just banned them entirely from their weekly commander competitions. It very much felt like something that was done because people playing with lower-power decks were complaining about it. In my opinion, at any event offering a prize pool, if you don't step up your game you deserve to get stepped on by players who did.
Obviously this isn't true for a group of friends playing together, but I think if you're playing for a prize you don't have a right to complain about losing to a more powerful deck just because it was more powerful than you could compete with.
If you're playing with a group of friends, you have a separate responsibility as a player to assess the power level of the table and try to pick a deck that plays to that power level. Cutthroat is fine when everyone at the table is playing at that powerlevel. If you're the only one playing a high-powered list, then I could understand why your friends might be upset.
Gspot and I can agree, though, that if you refuse to step up your power level, you don't really get to complain about not being able to deal with a card or combo.
July 16, 2015 5:17 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #35
Most people dislike combo/stax/infect because they didn't prepare for it, assuming edh is rampintofatties.Dec and build with that in mind. Edh is social and if everyone wants to get in a circle and dock their Craw Wurms, hey that's what they want. Honestly it shouldn't be a hot button topic but people seem to assume that what cards you play determine if you're a shitty person or not, so keep it in mind when firsting playing with a group.
July 16, 2015 5:39 p.m.
Building a whole deck around one or a few infinite combos that guarantee victory seems very fragile to me. I was playing against someone's BUG zombie combo deck that used tutors to fetch his infinites and win the game. However, I went 2-0 against him because Iona, Shield of Emeria prevented from him doing anything besides turning zombies sideways at me and I had fatter creatures. Similarly, someone in my playgroup runs Food Chain + Prossh, Skyraider of Kher with multiple ways to tutor for infinite damage to all opponents. Sure he's won with it a few times, but because everyone knows hes running these combos, they usually take him out of the game first.
I personally don't run infinite combos because I find them boring and they tend to generate unwarranted post-game hate in my group. Others in my playgroup have tried running infinites too and they just get bored of them (for example: "I got bored of only winning with Exquisite Blood + Sanguine Bond so I took the deck apart.") I too get bored of 2 hour snoozefests where no one can move an inch because there's a board wipe every turn but I don't think playing an infinite damage loop is a very rewarding victory either.
If someone is going to play with them at my group, that's great for them, but they should be prepared for everyone gunning at them so we don't have a multiplayer game that's shorter than the shuffle and setup time.
July 16, 2015 7:58 p.m.
I think sometimes a game just needs to end. If I've been dragging my feet through a game and someone combos off before I can deal with them, they deserve to.
As to beating combos - as I mentioned, combos are only a problem when the people playing against them don't play at the appropriate power level. If players are willing to escalate rather than complain about someone making more powerful plays then it all works out.
.
July 16, 2015 8:46 p.m.
Megalomania says... #38
I also don't understand why some playgroups feel the need to ban infinite combos.
Multiplayer is fun mainly because it forces you to play and adapt against a variety of archetypes.
I don't think this is even an issue concerning power levels. Some people are just too lazy to leave mana open to counter or cast removal to stop a combo from resolving.
Lastly, please stop saying combo is boring. Everyone has their own idea of fun. Everyone started off as an aggro player. Some eventually got "bored" of it and tried different archetypes. And in my experience, people who think combo decks are boring are ones who have a hard time winning against combo. Control people find playing against combo challenging and fun.
July 16, 2015 11:16 p.m.
I think a lot of players will call something boring because they can't beat it. Everyone badmouths the archetype that's been kicking their ass lately.
July 16, 2015 11:49 p.m.
Losing to the same combo over and over again is boring, regardless of it being in MTG or of it being infinite or not.
July 17, 2015 12:19 a.m.
Then why not pivot and try to adapt your own route of play to counter their combo? If your deck keeps losing to the same combo, then look for improvements that can help you beat that combo.
July 17, 2015 12:26 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #42
@Megalomania: That's kind of why I started the thread. I have the same attitude. Probably because my own playgroup has a wide variety of skill levels, deck power levels, playstyles and archetypes represented and we do a lot of multiplayer (even with 60 card decks). It's not a matter of competitiveness; it's just how we roll. Every player must be willing to adapt, and the more skilled players need to be willing to help newer ones (e.g. me) catch up.
Having not experienced a playgroup that has a "no infinite" rule it baffled me. It makes more sense to me now, but I still think it's not the best solution to the problems we've heard mentioned here.
And yeah, combo is not boring at all. Someone playing a highly linear deck is boring, but that's fairly easy to shut down. I find that well-made and well-played combo decks are fun to play and fun to play against. I'm saying this as someone who plays both aggro and combo. And as Gidgetimer pointed out, these decks are interactive; it's just that they're more likely to interact with control than aggro. Anyone who's been on either side of the combo vs. control matchup should know that very well.
July 17, 2015 12:54 a.m. Edited.
Megalomania says... #43
suneater, will you have any issue against combo decks if they kept losing to you? If not, then combo decks aren't really the problem.
July 17, 2015 1:04 a.m.
I've thought a lot about this subject, reading through this entire thread and rewriting this post several times. My conclusion is this:
- People have different motives for playing EDH. Some play it to relax in an environment that isn't a Standard/Modern/Legacy competitive setting, where gameplay is friendlier, political, more forgiving, and just different in general. The players driven by this motive just want a fair game with big complex board states, unpredictable outcomes, and most of all, a neck and neck battle where no deck appears highly advantaged over others. They want a good solid game.
- A very different motive for some players is to try to make a broken deck. For these players, breaking the format is merely in the spirit of the game. Playing Tooth and Nail entwined into Deadeye Navigator and Palinchron with Prime Speaker Zegana as your general easily lets you produce infinite mana, draw your entire deck, then do any number of horrible things to your opponents ranging from bouncing every permanent you don't control with Venser, Shaper Savant, or gaining control of all permanents with Memnarch, or taking infinite turns with Deadeye Navigator + Eternal Witness + Time Warp etc. These players aren't playing EDH to relax and get away from the stress of competitive tournament play. They're instead playing for one major reason. They want to show off the genius of their design. They want to impress you with the amount of effort they put into building their deck. They want you to oooo and ahhh at their masterpiece. They want you to fear their deck. They want you to respect its power. They feed on your exaltation. It's less about enjoying the archtype as it is feeding their hunger for approval.
When I see a pod starting with a particularly mean combo deck, I like to pull out my total control deck. The point of the total control deck is to not let anyone's broken cards resolve. Tooth and Nail? On my watch? Absolutely, 100% countered. If I don't like a particular player's deck, they will not resolve a single meaningful spell (unless their deck also plays 30+ counterspells, in which case I may actually have something to worry about). I will not only counter everything they do, I will represent an embarrassment of riches in the form of walking counterspells sitting on the table and looking at them right in the eye in the form of Glen Elendra Archmage and several others. They'll notice that all of my open blue mana, that is always fully untapped throughout their turn, every turn, is there only to crush their dreams. They will see the inevitable truth that they have lost that game a long time ago, and when they decide to put their combo deck away, I'll put away my total control deck and use a much fairer, more fun, and casual deck.
I'm a bad person for doing that. I should let them enjoy their deck, but instead I dreamcrush them, hoping that they'll want a break from the stressful competitive play and to enjoy EDH for the same reasons I do. Yeah, I'm a little bit ashamed for doing that to them, but it has worked. I've converted competitive EDH players into less competitive, fun-driven players seeking to build fairer decks. I'm not saying I don't like a competitive game every once in a while, but I ask the group first if they're up for it too. Recognizing that players play with these different motives and not rudely spoiling a pod by unleashing the wrath of an overpowered deck in a casual pod without warning is important to your reputation as a fellow player. Don't be "that guy." If you argue that the players who don't like infinite combos are the players who don't know how to beat them, you're dead wrong. Just absolutely wrong. I am an example of someone who has at least 3 decks set aside for people who want to step up their competitive play in EDH. You want to play a broken deck? I've got broken decks that stomp just as hard. And when you're ready to settle down and play EDH for the right reasons, I've got what I call my "real decks." The decks that allow a more fun EDH game to be played. The kind of game that you tell your friends about. The kind of game you remember. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I can respect that, and when I go my LGS, I'll sit down and play Standard/Modern/Legacy with you, and EDH with others.
July 17, 2015 1:22 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #45
@-Logician: The first group, what you call "real EDH" (and I'm inclined to agree) is not mutually exclusive with a deck that runs infinite combos. It seems disingenuous to suggest any deck with an infinite is "too good" for EDH or inherently "broken". Combos can be disrupted. That includes the ones you mentioned, and that only becomes easier if some jackass tries to do them every game.
I will maintain that there's a distinct chance (not a certainty by any means) someone who's opposed to any such combo (its power or "brokenness" not withstanding) in EDH simply has not made the effort required to answer it. "Competitive" has little to do with it. It's all "that guy" as you mention it. The hyper-competitive douchebag who does the same damn combo every time. That's not every infinite combo. I've played plenty of games where infinite combos happened, and yes, they were fun. Yes, they are talked about. There was no question as to whether they were proper EDH games and they had all the hallmarks of the format; the politics, the social interaction, the big plays and the uncertainty of the outcome.
Your response to actually broken decks that are unsuited to a particular meta? Seems fine. It's a dick move, but so is trying to crush everyone with a combo it's clear they have no way of dealing with. It's proportional, and putting (rather harshly) into practice what several in this thread have said is a better solution. But just saying "because someone we knew was a dickhead once, nobody can play any deck that can go infinite"? You want to talk unfair...
July 17, 2015 1:57 a.m.
I'm not saying no one can play any deck that can go infinite, but said deck is not to be mistaken as a casual deck. The point of including an infinite combo in your deck among other win-conditions is to have an out and be able to win the game immediately. It is clearly taking steps to push the competitiveness level of your deck to a higher degree. As soon as you put the deck into a competitive setting, I'll shut up. But putting into a noncompetitive setting, I stand my ground.
The EDH regulars at my locals do not have any such "no infinite" rule set in place. We've had people bring in some really dumb decks; one that comes to mind immediately is this unbelievable lockdown deck that destroyed all lands (basic and nonbasic) at least six times before turn ten, no exaggeration. Not even kidding. That bullshit exists. We don't set rules in place against that kind of deck, but after playing against that deck once, we didn't play against it again. He wanted to play again; we packed our bags and I said, "Nah, I'm going to head home and get some food." That lockdown deck was particularly the worst, but decks that tutor their combo pieces and play them with Boseiju, Who Shelters All and/or Cavern of Souls etc to ensure their resolution, and consistently performs this strategy every time isn't what I come to my LGS looking forward to. However, when it comes down to it, if I'm in the mood, I'll whip out a brutal Maelstrom Wanderer deck (net-decked, created by Wafo-Tapa: one of the best control players in the world) and they'll have real opponent on their hands. I'm not often in the FNM scene anymore, so sometimes I actually ask for this kind of game, as I do miss playing competitively. That is a weird day though. I don't often go to my LGS planning on throwing down with Maelstrom Wanderer.
On the other hand, we have players (like me) who have decks with great synergy, are moderately paced, and we have some games where there are well over 50 nonland permanents on the battlefield with life totals inching towards zero, well-thought-out plays, and there's still disruption involved. We are still countering a few spells, and removal is happening. We're still playing Magic and not completely fooling ourselves. That is what I look forward to most, and what most players at my LGS also look forward to the most.
July 17, 2015 2:42 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #47
I suppose. I don't entirely agree. I don't see how running infinites inherently makes the deck more competitive or suggests a desire to do so. It's just another way to play the game. For some decks, combos may in fact be the only viable way to win.
I run infinites in an EDH deck. I don't do it because I want to be "more competitive", I don't give a rat's ass about that. I do it because EDH is about big, silly plays and it doesn't get much bigger than "infinite". The aggro decks get absurd fatties, the control decks get all they could ever need for their nefarious schemes... and the combo decks get infinite combos. That just makes sense to me and has never been a problem in my own experience. They all keep each other in check. Some games last 15 minutes. Some games last four hours. Nobody I play with has an issue with it. People have fun.
To clarify, I'm not saying that playgroups should not prohibit or refuse to play with asshole decks like the ones your talking about. What I'm saying is that I don't feel it's reasonable or beneficial to assume that any deck with an infinite combo is such a deck. You want to tell turn-10-lockdown dude to get lost, I don't blame you. I would too. But I'd be bothered with a group telling some new guy "you can't use that deck, because infinite combo".
Nor do I feel it's at all reasonable to assume that just because someone is potentially able to combo off, you're not playing "real EDH". Until the RC straight up says "Hey, the only proper way to play this format is to turn fatties sideways for two hours", that claim has no legs to stand on. It's a social format, and the "proper" way to play it is up to individual social groups.
I started this thread to understand how other peoples' groups operated, and why. I'm not going to tell people "you're doing it wrong". I'm not in a position to do that and don't presume to ever be. The farthest I'll go is basically "this seems silly to me."
July 17, 2015 3:11 a.m.
I think people should see combo as a challenge to strengthen their decks. Every combo can be stopped. Especially in a pod match. If you lose to combo you can team up against that player in the next match. I also think that a well done combo deserves to end a game if it takes several pieces and no one in the multiplayer match was able to stop you.You could also think about your own strategy. If you play aggro you are obviously not fast enough, same goes for stax and so on...I started playing combo after several matches of more than two hours where no player could make an end to the game... this is (imho) worse that any combo resolving turn 5 or 6.
On the other hand playing combo is fun and challenging to play (especially if you have multiple win-cons in your decks). So you can try to resolve different combos each match.
July 17, 2015 5:34 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #49
Every time I participate in a thread about combos I see the same arguments and assumptions against them. It has been my experience when talking about combo in modern, why Wizards is no longer supporting combo in standard, and here. I would like to address a few of them and where I see flaws in the logic. Not all of these have come up here, but enough have that I would like to rebut the others before they happen.
"Combo players just want to break the format"- As a combo player and talking with others who play combo I can tell you that there are very few who are trying to sincerely break formats. The vast majority simply enjoy alternate win conditions or the unique play style that is combo. Alternate win conditions are usually hard enough to pull off that you need the excessive synergy that exists in a combo deck to do it. And there is something truly enjoyable with the "stop me if you can" aspect of combo.
"Combo takes no skill to play"- I would contend just the opposite. Combo decks take a good amount of skill to play well. Sure you can just play out the pieces and see if you win. The "oops I win" that everyone seems to think is all combo is. But to play combo well you are counter baiting and playing around removal. Assessing just the right time to play the pieces out and when to hold back. When an experienced combo player stares at their hand for 10+ sec before doing something it is them playing out 2-3 turns in their head, not just puzzling over if the 
up is for Counterspell. It is assumed that it is and then assessed how far back that would set the clock.
"Combo players don't enjoy the game exactly as I do so they are obviously wrong"- A bit presumptuous if you ask me, everyone is entitled to play as they would like, especially in the casual (yes I know the argument that EDH isn't casual, I disagree and have not been convinced otherwise) format of EDH. If someone wants to play combo more power to them. If someone wants to play control, go for it bud. But assuming that people have to play the way you want to or they are wrong is a bit egotistic and downright wrong in my opinion.
"Combo players don't want to enjoy they game, they want to show off how smart/creative they are and are just feeding a desire for approval"- Again just because someone does not consider the same thing you do enjoyable does not mean they are not enjoying the game. Also with the stigma attached to combo I would contend that most combo players are the ones who want to enjoy the game on their terms and don't care about your approval or if you appreciate what they did. Don't get me wrong it is nice when someone appreciates it. It is also nice to hear "Good job" instead of "Go sodomize yourself with a red hot mace"(something I had said to me once), but your approval means less than you being civil.
July 17, 2015 7:41 a.m.
Megalomania says... #50
So there's this playgroup that has "real" decks with good synergy, disruption, counterspells and players that are capable of coming up with well-thought-out plays but somehow thinks playing against combo decks counts as "fooling themselves"? Wow.
My playgroup just leaves mana open so they can cast counterspells, removal and disruption. They never once looked at a combo deck and saw it as "overpowered".
meecht says... #2
I think if infinite combos involved 3-4 cards, it wouldn't be an issue.
However, there are combos that require a very small number of cards. Tooth and Nail is basically a 1-card infinite combo in the right deck, and many blue decks run Deadeye Navigator + Palinchron. These can be hard to interrupt for some color combinations, and impossible for others.
July 15, 2015 5 p.m.