I can't believe how whiney people can become when trashing combo decks, and the players who play them.
I'm definitely a Johnny at heart and play a fair share of combo decks, including in multiplayer.
But I take care of playing in multiplayer a combo deck that is able to end the game here and now and this whatever the number of players.
I think it is a really bad idea to ban combo decks, it's a type of deck like any other. Although the other day a pal in my playgroup took out his new Painter's Servant + Millstone combo control (including sensei's divining top :P). He never plays combo and he bought the playset of Millstone quite high.
I find this inadequate because it is a two-card colourless combo. At the time I was playing my multicolour creature deck with the exalted creature that could disenchant AND the sorcery that could return a multicolour card from the graveyard, so I still tried.
The fault was the other players too, the other player that played green I think, didn't have artifact removal... that's dumb.
But that's what I get when playing combo, especially from a specific player. They whine about combo decks because their decks are not build well enough.
They build their non-combo decks like combo decks: they do their thing and that's all.
I have a most often annoying (as in works well enough and often) Reveillark control deck, it's like the opposite of a combo deck, and I like that deck too. And sometimes I get screwed because of a player having a very specific answer to it.
Another pal of mine has a blue/black control deck, very good one and VERY annoying: what he doesn't counter, he destroys with creature like Nekrataal AND he has card advantage with Dimir Guildmage.
As annoying as it can get, I respect that deck. :D
The other day I played my vampire deck and got milled by another blue-black deck of the same pal, he had two of that flying creature of Ravnica that milled the controller of a creature dealing damage to it, interesting game, finally lost on my part. But now I've tweaked my deck with that rare leveler of RoE and that other one that can get deathtouch and initiative. That's how the game is played: not only on the battlefield! And you don't need no Sideboard: I personally hate the tourney scene. In multiplayer, your sideboard is the other players' decks. If no-one has an answer to a specific situation, blame it on yourself, your "sideboard", on luck... shuffle or switch deck... and have fun!
Have you tried Planechase? Still really fun even with the burst of luck a player can get (don't play it in duel though).
If your playgroup ban combo decks and look down upon control decks, you'll only get aggro decks and that would be damn boring.
So don't whine about creativity being cut down if you use your time banning deck archetypes. We still have fun, even with my combo decks ( representing almost a third of all my decks)...
Peace! :3
Rules question? Have you read the Basic rulebook already? No? Why not take some time to do that?
How to autocard (do this to specify a card in your posts): Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus . Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One .
I'm not going to ask how this thread got completely off topic in only six pages of posts. Instead, I'm just going to respond to the first post as if the rest didn't exist. I apologize if this scuttles any conversations.
Re: the first post. Have you considered abdication instead of concession?
Abdication: the player does not lose the game. Instead, the player discards his or her hand, and cannot draw cards, cast spells, activate abilities, attack, or assign blockers for the rest of the game. That player essentially becomes a goldfish. Seeing as how that player is now a goldfish, he or she no longer has to be physically present to play, and can pack up his or her cards and go home.
Of course, this might require modifications to make it fair to all deck types. If someone's trying to mill out other players, then whenever an abdicated player would draw a card they turn over the top card of their library into their graveyard instead. In other versions, the abdicated player and his or her permanents gain shroud (so that players can't cast Rise from the Grave targetting the Baneslayer Angel that was in Tom's graveyard before he went home..."It was there, no really, I swear!").
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
On the topic of concessions, our group tends to fight to the death, unless there's absolutely no way to win. At this point, rather than waste everyone's time screwing around, an honourable concession in the name of getting another game going is in everyone's best interest.
But a strategic concession? Seems kind of greasy, for a lack of a better term.
On the topic of proxies, I can't be of much use. Our group plays EDH almost exclusively, and between all the functional reprints and budget alternatives, proxies aren't an issue. Not a lot of difference in playing Llanowar Wastes over Bayou in a 40 life game.
Seems like a good solution. Giving people who need to leave a proper way to do it and since it is in the rules provides a clear cut way for it to happen.
My group's usual response is to pound that person into the ground in the next few games. It leaves the protest option open, but the person doing it knows that there is a price.
Online though is more of a problem.
That being said, I personally am much more likely to use the tactic online - When winning. I had a case last night that is a perfect example. Playing 2HG, extended, and my partner has been mouthing off all game. I am playing a mana ramp deck, and I have just played beastmaster ascension , in the web of war , and beacon of creation in one turn. (14 lands in play) The game is obviously over, but my partner keeps mouthing off. So after attacking but before damage is assigned, I say GG and concede. My mouthy partner has to fight 2 on 1, or take the loss that his ego obviously can't handle.
Several blocks, and two new friend requests later, everyone seemed happy.
My friends and I always just played without concessions in casual games. Our thinking: We started this game as a fun thing to do, and you play it till the end so you get all the fun possible out of it! And, you'd be surprised how many times the last-minute antics WERE a ton of fun.
Agree with the majority of comments here. You are playing multiplayer Magic to pass the time with friends. Do not whine about it. Finish the game. No concessions.
Just an FYI about scenario #1... it doesn't work. You guys are all forgetting this rule:
801.2c The particular players within each player's range of influence are determined as each turn begins. Example: In a game with a range of influence of 1, Alex is seated to the left of Rob, and Carissa is seated to the right of Rob. Carissa is not in Alex's range of influence. If Rob leaves the game, Carissa will enter Alex's range of influence at the start of the next turn.
If B concedes in response to A's attack, C won't get hit with it.
Just an FYI about scenario #1... it doesn't work. You guys are all forgetting this rule:
801.2c The particular players within each player's range of influence are determined as each turn begins. Example: In a game with a range of influence of 1, Alex is seated to the left of Rob, and Carissa is seated to the right of Rob. Carissa is not in Alex's range of influence. If Rob leaves the game, Carissa will enter Alex's range of influence at the start of the next turn. If B concedes in response to A's attack, C won't get hit with it. Gerdef
Example 1. Alpha Strike from no Where. When playing a MP game with an Attack Left or Attack Adjacent option, a situation might come up in a 4+ player game, with two opponents opposite of each other each with large armies (Lets call them C and A) of creatures and their adjacent opponents with no creatures (B and D). Player DPlayer C (you) with a large army decides to do an all out attack on Player D because the person to their right Player B is a buffer against them being attacked before their next untap step by Player A. Suppose that after you declare all your attackers, the player to your right Player B decides to concede the game before the other person's turn with the large army. This might be because they don't have any answers in their hand to an all out assault from A's army. Now, because Player B conceded you are completely open to an Alpha Strike from Player A. This wasn't a tactically bad decision, it only became a bad decision because B conceded at a bad time.
801.2c The particular players within each player’s range of influence are determined as each turn begins.
801.3. Creatures can attack only opponents within their controller’s range of influence or planeswalkers controlled by those opponents. If no opponents are within a player’s range of influence, creatures that player controls can’t attack.
Red added for clarity. I actually mentioned rule 801.2c specifically because if someone concedes before a player with a large army untaps, they may leave someone else completely open to attack. I did make a mistake, with naming the players. I meant to have you be Player C (one of the players with a large army, since if you were B or D you wouldn't have any creatures to attack with, and you would already be open to an alpha strike). My example still works (although it isn't as clear as it could be), in no way am I saying that attacking creatures run past a player that concedes in response to an attack. In my example, another player is conceding during your attack step leaving you open to attack. I will clear up some of the more unclear areas of the original post.
Budget EDH:EDH on $20 a Deck. Join the Group Link has been defeated(X times) by Eyegorc in Dungeons 2(2x), 3(3x), and 6(3x).
