Emiel the BlessedEmiel the Blessed | Art by Antonio José Manzanedo

Infinite combos have a unique hold on the Magic community. Players seem to have a particular dislike for them. I've met players who use fast mana and tutors for their win conditions, but refuse to even touch a four-card infinite combo.

For a long time I was no different. I also hated infinite combos. I also hated fast mana. This has largely changed. I still have a love/hate relationship with tutors, though. This change of heart for me gives me a unique perspective on the sentiments surrounding infinite combos.

Let's see why players hate them so much.

Competitive or Not

One of the first distinctions I noticed when parsing through opinions about infinite combos was the competitive distinctions. Players separated infinite combos' acceptability between competitive play and casual. This was interesting to me. What I noticed here was the expectation. Players engaging with Commander had a diminished expectation of competitiveness. 60-card formats and cEDH are considered the time and place for infinite combos.

I think the reason for this is that the nature of Commander isn't about playing the most efficient and powerful thing. It's a format for exploration and self-expression. It is a game that desires competitiveness despite that, though. The necessitation of a Bracket System demonstrates a desire for competitiveness and power surrounding building and playing Commander decks that is at odds with the "nature" of Commander. There is a desire for more strength and efficiency depending on the builder or the player.

Casual means something different to everyone. Casual might be Bracket 1 or Bracket 4 depending on who you ask. I'd say even cEDH is a little too casual for what I'd consider "competitive," because of the multiplayer dynamics and a need sometimes to politic to win.

And I think that's the rub with infinite combos; they are efficient in a way that feels so competitive. It creates a rift between what feels casual and what is generally accepted as competitive. It's such a competitive element that is a necessary talking point when discussing the power of our decks long before the Bracket System — back in the times of "my deck is a 7."

This can be why some of the community feels a need to pull back from it. It feels like an infection in a casual game with elements of competitiveness that might not be the vibe.

Having a Combo in the Deck vs. Combo Decks

Another distinction that is relevant when talking about infinite combos is combo decks. There does seem to be a sentiment amongst the community about the problem with Combo decks in particular. The nature of Combo decks makes them slippery. They often appear not to be doing something until the precise moment they can win through interaction. It's a matter of time. That teaches other players that the Combo player has to go.

I've written about Combo decks and their elusiveness. You can't let them have anything and you can't let them live.

This causes a ticking clock and 3-vs.-1 dynamic for the game. It'll stay that way until the combo player is blown sufficiently out that they can't present their combo again. This is not fun for most players. They like the idea that no one has to sit out or feel bullied. It's the problem with Tifa LockhartTifa Lockhart. She can eliminate one player very quickly and then struggles with the last two. This makes her a somewhat infamous deck that players dislike.

This the reason players dislike combo decks — even if they don't dislike combos in general. The social dynamics of a combo deck make players uneasy leaving them alone or targeting them. It makes players dislike the play pattern of Combo decks completely.

Telegraphed vs. Secretive Combos

Another big gripe players have is that infinite combos are hard to identify. There are so many ways cards can go infinite in this game that identifying the two to five pieces necessary to make your deck go burrrr is somewhat impossible. Players feel like their lack of experience is being used against them. They might not know if a spell is the sort of thing you remove on the stack or remove the other piece in response, or is it already too late to do anything.

This lack of "A Neon Sign of Danger," can be very demoralizing to new players or even seasoned players who felt like if they understood what was going on they might have been able to do something. It makes combos feel like something that can't be interacted with unless you meet a minimum requirement of knowledge and experience. In a singleton format like this it basically becomes impossible to overcome.

This concern is more with the player of the combo than the combo itself. I make this distinction because I often point out my combo pieces when I put them on the stack. I want to give players the opportunity to mess with my strategy once it is relevant. Similar to Rule Zero conversations about other things, it might be relevant to ask players to present their combo pieces as combo pieces, walking through the goal of the combo to give other players the experience and thoughtfulness of interacting with it. Hiding that information only wins you one game anyway and makes people not like you. Why not explain it?

Fog or Bust

The biggest, most consistent complaint about combo decks is the anticlimactic nature of them. Everyone has shuffled up, mulliganned, attacked, blocked, and tried to do cool things, and then suddenly the game is over. It feels especially bad if the combo is presented all at one time with little to no time to deal with it. I think that is what players think they dislike, the anticlimactic nature of a combo, but really it must be something else.

Cards like Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth, Moonshaker CavalryMoonshaker Cavalry, Akroma's WillAkroma's Will, and InsurrectionInsurrection are all single cards that usually just end games suddenly too. These cards don't get the same reputation. Some players dislike Insurrection, but I rarely see players disliking a Craterhoof. It's like combat damage is a little less anticlimactic than other ways of losing. Craterhoof seems like a harder thing to set up, but often has harder points of interaction. It becomes a very specific kind of interaction check. FogFog, Teferi's ProtectionTeferi's Protection, or OG CounterspellCounterspell type of effects or bust.

Combos are usually a little more fragile than Craterhoof being put on the stack, but are also specific removal or interaction checks. Neither feels good, that helplessness, but why aren't we rallying against Craterhoof in the same way? There might be something about the idea of anticlimactic that I'm overlooking. Maybe these ways of losing are still anticlimactic, but not as upsetting. Instead of thinking about how it feels sudden and abrupt, maybe it's more about how earned it feels?

Combos like Demonic ConsultationDemonic Consultation + Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle needs so little mana, so few cards in hand, can happen early, and ends abruptly with you just winning the game. Craterhoof needs some investment. You need creatures, eight mana, and to turn your creatures sideways with enough damage to kill the whole table. It feels like someone had to set up enough to get there. Maybe that's why we dislike Combos, but not Craterhoof.

2-Card vs. 4-Card Combos

There are leagues of difference between a Thassa's Oracle + Demonic Consultation infinite combo on turn two or three that wins the game and a Fanatic of RhonasFanatic of Rhonas + Village Bell-RingerVillage Bell-Ringer + Emiel the BlessedEmiel the Blessed maybe on turn five or six that just gives you infinite enters, leaves, and green mana. There are even combos that are more involved at turn six or seven involving four or more pieces. Why is this relevant?

Players dislike the feeling of getting sidelined. The game is over before it's even begun with combos like Consultation + Thoracle. The time to see a way to interact is limited. The interact point, or the exact place that best disrupts the spell, is limited too. It's frustrating to feel like the purpose of the game was to win, instead of doing something interesting with your deck. The Emiel combo seems more flavorful, more unique to the deck, while the former sounds like something you can slam in any Dimir deck to win the most efficiently.

This all comes back to the idea of the "nature" and "casualness" of Commander. There might be some players who see 4-card combos in line with casual and the nature of Commander while others might not. It's a distinction that was made on the kinds of combos that are acceptable in the community.

Conclusion

What I didn't like about combos before was how abruptly they could end the game, how hard it might be to see them coming, and how hard they are to interact with. The more I played high power commander, I came to appreciate infinite combos as a little escape hatch when someone locks you out of your initial strategy; an alternative win condition. It doesn't have to be tutor-able, doesn't have to be two cards, doesn't have to have zero interaction points. Expectation, like any other topic in conversations about balancing power in Commander, was the need here. It was just as mundane as the number of Game Changers.

When I could play my own infinite Combos, I started to like the heightened feeling of having the game within my grasp, that I'd burst through the ceiling of what a deck could do. It made me feel powerful, unstoppable. Even when I quickly learned that the more you play, the more people will mess with your combos, I still enjoyed them. There are windows, opportunities. There is an art to carefully placing a combo into play. CEDH is all about that art.

With all of that in consideration, I find that it's very relevant the type of combos you play, how open you are about their weaknesses, how earned they feel when you win, and how quickly it ends a game that are why we dislike them. Most of these concerns can be tweaked and adjusted to make combos feel more acceptable, less upsetting. Some concerns are preferential like the flavor you prefer to win with, but ultimately, I think some of us should give combos a second chance.

That's what I think. What do you think? I'm @strixhavendropout on everything.