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.
Maybe I need Gidgetimer's argumentation tomorrow after succesfully playtesting the changes I made for my combo decks :D to calm down angry people...
July 17, 2015 12:05 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #5
Megalomania, it's not about playgroups thinking that combo decks are "overpowered". They can obviously be beaten if you build deck designed to beat combo decks.
Rather, it's that they consider them "unfun".
For many people, the joy of commander is in playing multi-hour games with complicated board states and interactions that you won't find elsewhere. It's a display of personality. It's fun and social. Building a deck to make a T4 win, in the minds of many people, defeats all of that.
It's not about skill level; it's about game choice. Anybody can build a T4 win combo deck - you just need to look around this site, choose one, and netdeck it. And if your goal is to have a fast, hyper-competitive deck, you've got that. Congrats.
But for many people who play EDH, it's not about winning quickly and consistently. It's about having a night to relax, to shoot the shizz with friends, and to play some magic and see interactions they've not seen before.
There's a difference between a deck designed to end the game in 15 minutes, and a deck that has a few game winning combos in it, but that still allows the game to play - the combos are a bonus, not the raison d'etre.
Is combo bad? Absolutely not. It's valid and reasonable if that's what you're going for.
But is it also reasonable for a playgroup to decide amongst themselves that they don't want to play a game where people combo out before T6? Absolutely.
It's not about skill or power - it's about the type of game you want to play.
July 18, 2015 2:42 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #6
Again, "deck with one or more infinite combos" is not the same as "deck designed to consistently end a game in minutes". I don't think there's any debate here about the latter being a possible nuisance in this format. The issue is people conflating the two and thus treating them the same way.
And again, combos are fragile. Sure, you can netdeck a crazy combo deck (even though netdecking any EDH deck seems anathema to the whole format). But you can do the same thing for a control deck that will shut these things down, so... what?
I'll restate; it seems more reasonable to me to prohibit a problem card/combo/asshole player than to just toss everything out the window along with an entire technique of playing. Banning all infinite combos for that purpose seems a bit like treating an ingrown toenail with amputation.
July 18, 2015 3:11 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
Why do people not ban hyper aggressive decks as well as combo if the point is to make games last longer because they consider it "unfun" to have to interact with their opponent in the early turns of a game? Before I changed my Oloro deck around little (which didn't make it faster, just added in counters and board wipes) both it and my Xenagos deck were tuned toward multi-player. The Oloro deck has no win condition outside of combos and 1 card wins. The Xenagos deck is much faster though because Ramp into fatties, double their power, give them trample is fast.
July 18, 2015 8:35 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #8
I think that the problem that most people have with early turn infinite combos, Gidgetimer is actually the non-interactivity of them (the "it resolves, I win" aspect).
People like the interaction of aggressive combat focused decks.
July 18, 2015 9:12 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #9
Because they're ready for creature based strategies. Combo forces them to interact outside of combat in the early stages.
July 18, 2015 9:16 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #11
Well, I could build a deck that is all of the cards I enjoy playing and that I have fun with, or I could have the cards I want to play and then a bunch of ways to stop combo decks from killing me before I get to do my thing. I'd rather not just play against a turn 3 Hermit Druid kill over and over again, I'd either have to have a faster wincon (hard to do), have about 20 pieces of interaction to stop the combo (counterspells are only really in one set of colors, and it can really water down your topdecks unless you are also running tons of tutors), or just ignore it and hope that someone else can deal with it for you. None of those are particularly fun options if you aren't a Spike.
At least with combos like Tooth and Nail, it won't normally happen until turn 6-7 or later. You have time to establish yourself, and you have time to find some kind of protection.
Anyways, if I had to point the blame at something, I would just ban the tutors. Tutors are what make these decks so powerful and consistently fast.
July 18, 2015 11:54 a.m.
I think this whole thing falls under the perception that commander is a casual format when in fact, it's not. It's a social format. When people label it as a casual format then everyone gets upset when people try to win outside of big battlecruiser styles. Just because you find that style of play interesting doesn't mean that it's not boring as hell to some of us.
Playing big creatures as a win condition bores me to no end. If I'm turning sideways in edh, I'm probably falling asleep.
You know what happens when someone combos off? You're acting like it just ends everything, but in a mature playgroup it's not just "it resolves, I win," it's "it resolves, I win, next game?" and nobody moans about them suddenly winning. If they're becoming a problem the whole table gangs up on them and they lose the next one.
July 18, 2015 11:58 a.m.
Also, I'd say if we're talking about combos, your comment on Tooth and Nail is full of crap. I would say it's one of the biggest offenders in the format.
July 18, 2015 noon
lemmingllama says... #14
@ibanner56 It's certainly a social format. My playgroup is more casual than highly competitive, but we do run some fairly hefty decks. You don't need an instant wincon to still be competitive. Purphoros, God of the Forge is a perfect example. He wins quickly and and very consistent, but normally not in the first 3-4 turns of the game and also gives other plays lots of time to interact. Also red doesn't run tutors other than Gamble, so it plays out differently every game. My playgroup runs stuff like Purph, Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, Oloro-Storm, and Teferi, Temporal Archmage-Omniscience. Notice that all of them except maybe the storm player are slower combo decks, and Storm also takes a perfect set of cards with no interaction to get a big enough Tendrils of Agony to kill three other players. Also all of those decks don't run a slew of tutors.
As for Tooth and Nail, it's all about what you are fetching. I do agree that it is a huge offender and I would shed exactly 0 tears if it got banned, but it still isn't as bad as the Hermit Druid style of decks, or even the Azami, Lady of Scrolls decks.
Finally, I don't really care about if other people's playgroups want to run infinites. Just that I won't have a good time since I do not have the budget necessary to build a deck that can compete in those formats, and I also enjoy a format that allows strategies like lifegain or big durdly creatures to actually be viable. If I really want to just go for a combo and be done with it, I would just play my Modern deck instead.
July 18, 2015 12:13 p.m.
You can play different combos every game. I feel like the assumption here is that if a player is running an infinite combo it's the one they always go for.
I personally prefer to play with several possible 3+ card combos and see which one happens in any given game.
July 18, 2015 12:25 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #16
I guess my problem is that I sincerely don't understand how 3-4 people goldfishing at the same time with the occasional "all creatures die" is enjoyable. If people want to play Masturbation: the Gathering, I guess that is on the playgroup wanting to play with themselves. I like having to interact with the opponent "cast this, destroy that, respond with". You are never forced to counter any combo. There are ways to disrupt any combo with a well timed response.
July 18, 2015 1:42 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #17
@lemmingllama: Including some answers is just good deck design. You don't need to stuff the deck full on them, but if you don't include some then of course your deck will struggle against combos. It's not really even a Spike thing, it's just good sense. If someone's running a douchey "win on turn 3 every game" deck, just don't play with them, because that blows. But otherwise, I mean...
"In response to Deadeye Navigator's soulbond trigger, Swords to Plowshares."
Stuff like that.
Not sure what you mean about not having the money, putting enough answers in your deck to answer combo isn't outrageously costly, especially if you consider that there will be others at the table with an interest in disrupting a combo that will win the game, it does not all need to be in your deck.
@ibanner56:I agree. And this also brings up the question of why this stuff is resolving so consistently. My own experience playing with or against combo is that a lot of disruption gets thrown around. And if a combo gets off through it, that's just how it goes and you start the next game.
July 18, 2015 1:47 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #18
It sounds like we are going on about different things. You seem to be talking about just having a combo in your deck, and it isn't the only way your deck can win. I'm personally talking about decks that are designed to explicitly find and execute a combo that will always win, and that have the necessary protection to back it up. Take a look at something like 0% Basic as an example. It's a very expensive deck that can win counter wars over the combo enabler and has enough tutors to consistently find the combo. These are the kinds of decks that I'm opposing. You can't actually win with a "fair" deck against these without exceedingly fast starts or about 20-30 counterspells/interactive cards.
As for removal, I normally tend to run about 10ish removal cards in a deck. That only guarantees that I will have one by turn 3 about 2/3rds of the time. And if I don't have that, they resolve their Arcum Dagsson or Zur the Enchanter or Hermit Druid or whatever, and it's too late at that point. I could increase the amount of interaction, but it also makes my own strategies less effective. Sometimes its just nicer for everyone to decide to not play those strategies and to focus more on having some good friendly magic. My decks play so that I can enjoy equally with the guy who modified their precon or the person who running the Xenagos, God of Revels stompy deck alongside the Thraximundar control decks and the Slobad, Goblin Tinkerer artifact combo decks.
July 18, 2015 2:41 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #19
@lemmingllama: Ok yeah, that's different. I see no problem with people refusing to play those decks; that's entirely reasonable. Those decks have no place at a friendly EDH game.
What I take issue with is when people seem to go "the deck has infinite combos, ergo it must one of those decks". That feels unreasonable and unfair to me.
On the removal issue; it's a multiplayer format. With more players the odds that someone will be able to disrupt a combo increases. Against a deck that's not designed to be super-competitive, the outcome shouldn't be assured as soon as you sit down at the table.
July 18, 2015 3:05 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #20
lemmingllama You're demonizing combo decks on the grounds that they're all build as Full-power-anus-ripping-death-machines and that the pilots are always ignoring the social aspect of the format in pursuit of victory. There's literally nothing wrong with constructing a deck built around assembling a combo, and building it with degrees of protection and redundancy.
July 18, 2015 4 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #21
@Gspot: I think that's really most of this comes down to. That false equivalency. I don't know that lemmingllama is doing that exactly, but I've certainly seen it.
July 18, 2015 4:23 p.m. Edited.
canterlotguardian says... #22
I've played with playgroups that combo'd off on T3-4 consistently, and I've played with groups that considered anything less than 2-3 hour games to be a travesty. And I've run decks with infinites and decks without them.
And you know what? I've loved every minute of it. I just want to play EDH. I don't want to nitpick about "oh this goes against my playstyle, you shouldn't play it". No, that's bullshit to me. I'm just going to play the game and enjoy myself.
July 18, 2015 4:48 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #23
@canterlotguardian: Hell yeah!
Also, didn't your username use to be a different color?
July 18, 2015 4:55 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #24
Yes it did. I got tired of peach, so I switched it up. I'm a loyal member of the Izzet League anyways, so I thought it approrpriate.
July 18, 2015 4:59 p.m.
Megalomania says... #25
Named_Tawyny if an entire playgroup cannot stop a guy from coming up with T4 wins, then the decks is "overpowered" for the group. It becomes "unfun" not because it is a combo deck that aims to win as early as possible, as often as possible but because it actually wins. Anyone can build a combo deck but until he starts winning consistently, I doubt people playing other archetypes won't mind. Point is, it is the playgroup's inability to deal with a specific archetype which is causing the problem and not the archetype itself.
Netdecking aside, forcing a player to change the way he builds his deck limits his creativity. One of the fun things about EDH is getting a good sense of what a person's idea of a "fun" deck is and how well he is able to prepare for contingencies which are abundant in multiplayer games.
Lastly, some people find challenge to be fun. As a combo player, you'll never see me complain about a control player being "unfun". I like the challenge. It provides me with as much interaction as an aggro playing against another aggro deck does.
July 18, 2015 11:03 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
There's a distinction to be made, there, I think.
If the players are still enjoying the game and nobody is being pushed outside of the spirit that brought them together in order to answer the one player who constitutes the real threat, then the issue lies with the construction of the other decks in the group.
If the winner is the only one enjoying the game and nobody else is really having fun and wouldn't be having fun even if they built a more competitive deck, then the issue lies with the player who's playing outside of the group's boundaries.
Social play is complicated in this way. It's very much based on establishing the group's own social contract and designing it to offer the greatest versatility to the players while still representing their common interests.
The most common reason, I think, for banning infinite combos outright is the perception that many players have of them. Some playgroups do legitimately enjoy combat-oriented games where combo players don't sit back and power up a win button. And I have no issue with playgroups that genuinely, mutually agree that combos don't represent an interest amongst their players.
Beyond that, even, I can understand wanting to ban combos because they threaten to warp the group. In this case, the issue is that combos are very difficult to incorporate into a deck as an accent. Let's say, for example, that I build a BUG goodstuff deck that happens to have Mikaeus, the Unhallowed + Triskelion as its only combo. In most games, I try to win through combat using traditional BUG beatsticks like Grave Titan. But that win button is still always available, and there will still be temptation to use it to secure a game I may not have won with my primary strategy. Thus, the combo becomes something of a crutch, and the other players begin to feel like you're going easy on them in those games when you don't just combo out for the win (especially when you could have, but you allowed someone else to win; this tends to lead to "consolation wins" being controlled by the player with the win button). And if the group dynamic persists in this way, it may also be the case that other players feel compelled to add their own combos or drastically change their decks just to mitigate the threat of the first player's combo. As I explained above, this is unhealthy if it forces the group to play outside of their agreed boundaries just to police another player or if it leads to a toxic political atmosphere.
With all of this said, I do maintain that combo can certainly be part of a healthy playgroup, provided that the above concerns don't have tremendous impact on that playgroup. I myself play(ed) competitively, and combos were welcomed not only as part of the game, but as a consistent and powerful option for those looking to win (we all were).
July 18, 2015 11:26 p.m.
I've never been one to ban combos as a blanket rule, especially since there are so many of them that in a synergistic deck a player might be running some and not even realize it, and not having a set banlist of cards makes the rule very arbitrary and hard to enforce.
But I'm curious, how people feel about banning particular combos?
For instance, I've never been a fan of any 2 card combo that combos with your commander with no other set up required, (e.g. Prossh + Food Chain, Teferi + Knowledge Pool, Mikaeus + Triskelion) because it's usually a case of: "If I resolve my commander and X, I win, regardless of the boardstate."
That being said, do you think it would be fair of a group to tailor their banlist to include specific cards cards that are combos to themselves (like Tooth and Nail)? Or to make commander specific banlists, like, "If you're playing Prossh, then Food Chain can't be in your 99." ?
Or do you guys feel that's still restricting creativity unfairly?
July 19, 2015 1:44 a.m.
I would definitely say that you shouldn't ever tell someone they're not allowed to run a combo. I think asking them not to, or letting them know how you feel is completely reasonable, but telling someone they can't play something makes that person feel awful - you're basically just telling them that their version of fun is wrong.
July 19, 2015 2:20 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #30
@ Epochalyptik: Yeah, after reading this thread I'm inclined to agree. As long as there is mutual agreement I've got no problem there. I don't think it's the optimal solution and I think such a group might be missing out, but if there is a consensus... well, having fun is the most important thing. However...
ibanner56 has an excellent point. I'd feel pretty bad if someone told me I'm disallowed from using decks I love because of things beyond my control. If there's a particular problem I'd much prefer to discuss it and how to fix it rather than just having people go "Yeah, we decided: no." I'd extend the same courtesy to others.
@sonnet666: Seems reasonable. If that combo is creating a problem for the health of that particular meta then prohibiting it doesn't sound like going overboard to me. But there should be discussion of the matter.
My playgroup doesn't ban anything in this format (and really, only one thing in any format), which is kind of what inspired this thread. We have someone with Mikaeus as a commander and Triskelion in the 99. If that goes unanswered, he wins, and it does happen. There hasn't been any discussion of not playing against that deck, we just sit down knowing that combo is possible and we must be prepared to respond to it. We don't tailor our decks to fight Triskelion, but we keep an awareness of the danger it poses.
And on the times nobody has an answer, we go "Play again?"
July 19, 2015 3:17 a.m.
The thing is though, that's kinda the point of a banlist. It's an established rule that tells people that certain types of fun are too powerful for anyone else to have fun a different way.
Like, what percentage of modern was a variant of Pod right before the banning? 40%? 50%?
There gets to be a point where other strategies just can't compete. And to me at least, having half your combo start in the command zone, with a deck that can be 20% tutors, is well on it's way to reaching that point.
Obviously playgroups shouldn't ban combos just because someone in the group is using them and winning a lot. That's sure to make that person feel terrible. But coming up with a rule about which combos are too powerful, and then selectively banning based off of that criteria, shouldn't make anyone feel discriminated against, especially if they had a voice in choosing that criteria.
July 19, 2015 3:24 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #32
True, sonnet666. It's up to the playgroup in this format though. For my group, we consider the RC's list to be perfectly fine. Others might not, and that's totally cool.
The only card we've more or less banned is Limited Resources in 60 card free-for-all, for exactly the same reasons it's banned in EDH. That's an example of something that was highly disruptive and made everyone miserable. It wasn't healthy for the group so it's not allowed anymore. People don't have fun when it's there. That is the situation where banning something's warranted in my opinion.
If a playgroup had a problem with the Triskelion thing it seems like they should decide that you can't have that card in that deck. The player can take it out, put something else in and then everyone keeps playing. I think the key word you used was "selectively". That's very important.
July 19, 2015 3:33 a.m. Edited.
FancyTuesday says... #33
It's a different kind of game. If you don't get it I don't know that it can be explained in a way that can be understood, it's just what someone else finds fun. Some people like being choked, some people like Battlecruiser magic, we all have our kinks.
Years ago I played Type 1 Replenish. I had my Power 11 and my Force of Wills and I'd win or lose every game by turn 3 in tournaments where Moxen were in the prize pool. It was fun. I liked playing my one trick and massacring sleigh decks and exiling Morphlings and essentially playing the same game every game because of the rewards at stake and the environment I was in facing the opponents I was facing.
Fast forward to maybe two years ago and I meet one of my old card buddies at work and he reintroduces me to Magic, and then EDH. The singleton format appealed to me, it promised a reprieve from the monotony that'd driven me from Magic in the first place and I started building dumb gimmicky decks.
But there was a problem. With my old sensibilities I'd built decks that were too consistent; it was too easy to add in tutors and run powerful old cards I had lying around, my EDHs decks were doing the same bullshit my T1 decks were and with the exception of my work buddy I rolled over every single other person playing in a league that saw 30+ people. I was explaining to old men playing mono-white Yojimbo and girlfriend-of-drafter rolling a precon how I was going to be taking infinite turns with Magistrate's Scepter. I remember a game where the 4 other players at the table all agreed to go after me, at least two of which had very nice decks, but one of them accidentally played something that was supposed to tax me but ended up letting me twiddle artifact mana and rolling everyone with a turn 2 Consecrated Sphinx.
Nobody was having fun and I felt guilty for effectively ruining games, so I changed to match my meta. I geared down, swapping in dumber, more thematic cards over bombs and running a shitton of my own disruption to give everyone else a fighting chance on the odd day some other shark swims through our little minnow pond. The playmats, precons and other promotional doodads they hand out as prizes are worthless to me but mean the world to some of these other players, I'd rather just sit down and play goofy shit in a nice friendly game than force a gang of casuals to watch me decksturbate over a cheated out Omniscience so I can be the best there ever was.
July 19, 2015 4:02 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #34
FancyTuesday, you are fucking awesome. I applaud you.
July 19, 2015 4:20 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #35
GP Omaha, which was the event right before the Fate banning, had 1 Pod deck in the top 8 (12.5%) and a total of 3 pod decks in the top 16 (18.75%) the only numbers that come close to the 40% people like to try quoting is the top 32 which was 10 total decks (31.25%).
I am sincerely interested in where this 40+% is coming from because I can't find it anywhere for GP Omaha (can't find a full break down). I also can't find anywhere where the general meta was near that skewed. Pod saw a rise as one of the few decks that could stand up to delver with cruise, and then people flipped their shit.
July 19, 2015 8:01 a.m.
@Gidgetimer: I guess it was just more popular than it was successful. I don't follow modern that closely, my mistake.
July 20, 2015 3:49 a.m.
sonnet666 soooo what you're saying is that Pod doesn't actually do anything to support your argument.
July 20, 2015 11:52 a.m.
Well... Now... I guess it doesn't. That's why I was admitting my mistake.
You don't have to be an ass about it. My argument still stands even if I had a bad example.
July 20, 2015 1:49 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #39
Yeah, sonnet666 still has a point even if the pod example doesn't back it.
July 20, 2015 2:06 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #40
I do not follow Modern, but Googling "Birthing Pod deck statistics" I found the following:
- Grand Prix Richmond, 2014: "The Top 8 was composed of three major archetypes: five Birthing Pod decks, one Splinter Twin deck, and two Affinity"
- Grand Prix Madrid, 2014: "While Birthing Pod stole the top spot as the most popular card in the Top 8, Tarmogoyf came in a close second and it played a vital role in Immanuel Gerschenson's victory in the eventall the more surprising considering the vast amount of cards with delve we've seen all weekend."
- Grand Prix Boston, 2014: "However, where Pod had been the biggest player in Day 2, it had proven a victim of its own popularity. Players had come prepared to beat it, and not a single Pod deck made the Top 8."
- Grand Prix Omaha, 2015: "Birthing Pod was the deck to beat all weekend, with many famous pilots throughout, but it's a fitting end for a hometown boy like Peters to pilot the Pod to the end of the tournament."
- Grand Prix Milan, 2015: "His Birthing Pod deck took him to victory defeating Jeskai Ascendancy and Primeval Titan alike on his way to the title. In the end not even Italian Niccolo Bellini and the Birthing Pod mirror match could stand in his way."
Additionally MTG Top 8 shows Birthing Pod to be the single most popular deck of all Modern decks in 2014 at 11%, followed by Splinter Twin at 10% and Affinity at 9%.
If the argument is that cards are banned because "other strategies can't compete" I'd say that argument hardly needs to be made at all, it sorta goes without saying. See also: Stoneforge Mystic and Treasure Cruise. When a single card becomes so pervasive to a format that the most likely winning strategies are to either run that card or run a deck designed to beat that card it has warped the format.
July 20, 2015 2:22 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #41
11% isn't 40%. I am not contending that pod shouldn't have been banned or that it wasn't popular, mostly because this isn't the place for that. I am simply asking that when people quote numbers they quote accurate numbers and not some hyperbole that Jimmy at the card shop told them.
July 20, 2015 2:55 p.m.
I feel like this conversation is just leaning back to arguing that all infinite combos are evil because a few are oppressive. This is exactly what Gspot and Megalomania were talking about - your problem with a given infinite combo it isn't that it's a combo, your problem is that it's THAT specific combo.
July 20, 2015 3:52 p.m. Edited.
FancyTuesday says... #43
I feel like the direction this conversation is taking isn't about combos at all, but statistics.
I did some digging and found that Birthing Pod won 3 out of 8 Modern events between the beginning of the 2014 season and when it was banned in January 2015, or 38%, rounded. In events I could find top 16 data for it was in 2/16 (Prague), 5/16 (Richmond), 7/16 (Minneapolis, over 40%) of decks, and the next event it simply says "Thirty-two players used Birthing Pod based decks to get themselves to day two of Grand Prix Boston-Worcester--more than any other deck."
So running up to the point that the meta changed to be "counter Birthing Pod" it was climbing in popularity and it did at one point pass 40%. It would not be properly banned for another half a year after the meta relaxed enough for it to return and it won two consecutive GPs where it was in 3 of 4 of the decks in the combined final rounds.
These statistics are, of course, cherry picked to illustrate a point. Tarmogoyf won three GPs in a row in Birthing Pod's absence, so take from it all what you will.
Getting back on topic: yes, of course the complexity/deadliness of the combo matters, infinite or not. A 5 card Rube Goldberg machine is a lot easier to foil and offers many more opportunities to interact with parts of it than a 2 card combo where you have access to one at all times.
July 20, 2015 4:49 p.m.
Here's the thing: a lot of people are saying hey ban combos and all combo decks are oppressive because of a few. But not many will focus on the fact that just asking someone to not force a combo is bad too.
One of my friends runs a voltron deck with a lot of combos, as most of his decks are. And I love playing against that deck whenever we're playing together. It's fun. But if we're playing one on one, I always ask not to imprint Silence or Moment of Silence to Isochron Sceptor for one simple reason: it was oppressive as hell. I couldn't do shit for about 16 turns and I got bored really easily until he won. So he doesn't use it when we play one on one. He was nice about it.
Or, at the same time, I won't use any of my harsh combos during games against my gf, who's fairly new to edh. It's as simple as that (although I did Genisis Wave'd after getting Zhur-Taa Ancient and Dictate of Karametra out). You just have to be comsiderate of how much fun the other person is having.
July 20, 2015 5:10 p.m.
Do you play decks with combos as powerful as Splinter Twin + Deceiver Exarch, or combos that require 3+ pieces?
July 22, 2015 12:26 a.m.
I usually stick to 3+ piece combos, especially if one piece is my commander. I have 2 card "combos" in some of my decks, but even if they can go infinite, they don't actually do anything (Saffi Eriksdotter and Loyal Retainers, for example).
That's not to say that I disapprove of 2 card combos, I just don't play them myself because I don't find them to be as fun.
July 22, 2015 9:23 a.m. Edited.
ibanner56, Just curious, does that include 3 piece combos where the 3rd piece is something generic and interchangeable like "sac engine" or "discard outlet?"
July 22, 2015 10:03 a.m.
EndStepTop says... #48
Combos are the devil. Creatures are God's way of playing edh. Repent ibanner56
July 22, 2015 10:30 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #49
Well I'm just a dirty sinner, Gspot. And I love it.
July 22, 2015 10:36 a.m.
sonnet666 Yes, I would count Saffi Eriksdotter, Sun Titan, and Blasting Station as a 3 piece combo. There are 3 pieces in that list.
In fact, even if you replace Blasting Station with "Generic Sacrifice Outlet", that list is still 3 elements long.
ibanner56 says... #1
-Logician:
I think your postulate about combo players wanting attention is bullshit. I'm allowed to find other ways of winning boring. I'm a Johnny. I have the most fun when I'm trying to pull together some archaic machination that just kills everyone when it comes together. I don't care if you liked it, I care that I liked it. If all I wanted was attention I wouldn't be defending combo as an archetype.
July 17, 2015 9:53 a.m.