I am sure a lot of you have been in this situation before, a player in the game you are playing demonstrates that they have produced a form of infinite loop on the board. The person then explains what is about to happen without actually going through those motions to attempt to get everyone around the table to concede and the game to begin again.
You are sitting there with some form of way in your hand to not die to the combo being presented and want to tell the person to play it out without also signalling that you indeed have something in hand and that they should dig a little farther for some extra forms of protection.
Anyone have any good ways to navigate this? I generally say I want to see if the person will screw something up and choose not to concede and that seems to work.
Create a precedent of "I always expect you to go through the whole combo." Even if you don't have anything, ask them to go through it. They'll never know if you have an answer or not. Now, this may force them to be a less greedy player by ALWAYS going for a counter to your answer, but they should probably be doing that anyway.
Also, I think your current strategy is fitting: you don't want to give the game away. Plenty of combo decks can have a 1% chance of not winning or the player can realize they needed 1 more mana, or 1 card that is their hand needs to be in the library or something--so it is quite reasonable. But I would say my way is less aggressive; "I don't I think you're a bad player, I just have this rule that I watch people go through their combo."
As someone who has screened up my own infinite combo in the past, I agree with Riley. Make them demonstrate that they can perform the actions (unless it's something like infinite Scry 2+ where judges have ruled it works to stack your entire deck and you don't have to understand the why). And then at the least, have them talk through their intended actions ("so here's how I recur Mike and Trike and the order I kill everyone") so that you can give.yourself a chance to respond.
Since you seem to have indicated that you've done this, then interject at the point where they described as if you had responded when they were playing it out. It's a two way street, if I let you shortcut you have to let me shortcut and accept my response.
1. They have an infinite combo that wins on the spot. You make them perform one loop 'to show it' and you disrupt the loop.
2. They have an infinite combo that needs to proceed to another step - for example, they can make infinite creatures with haste, and you have an Aetherspouts. This is tough, because if you are not scooping, obviously you have an answer. So, maybe they decide to cast sorcery speed tutor to get a counterspell (which they should have done anyway).
I feel like if they can dig for a counter, they are supposed to no matter what. If nobody scoops to infinite creatures, then they will tutor for it. If everyone scoops, he didn't waste everyone's time. I think this is more of a shortcut than you tipping the person off that they need an answer.
But this is also a simplified example. Maybe the answer they dig for changes depending on which person is not scooping. If you have a sac outlet and Academy Rector in play and Pernicious Deed in your deck, they should tutor for a boros charm or something similar.
I agree that this gets a little touchy. Some combos may require very specific answers too. I remember my opponent had Azami, lady of Scrolls and Mind over Matter. Usually, people scoop to this since they just draw their deck, play laboratory Maniac, and draw another card. I had Sudden Death in hand and did not scoop. My opponent therefore decided to play out Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir before playing Laboratory Maniac to protect himself. Teferi protected him from the only possible interaction that could change the outcome of the game at that point. It was correct to play Teferi. But, if I could have feigned ignorance and said "show me how you win", maybe I could have 'got him'.
Here is the thing - I would rather not win by tricking my opponent into letting their guard down. If they can protect their combo, they should, and I accept that if they explaining their combo to get concessions it is more to save time than anything.
I remember another game where an opponent attacked everyone for Lethal. We all started scooping... then after about 30 seconds someone goes "well, I have an answer", and played Darkness. It was annoying for the people who started scooping to start figuring out what they had in play and in hand and in their graveyard.
So, I think the better line is that the person who is comboing out or who is attacking for lethal should not be fishing for concessions but should shortcut in this manner:
1. Demonstrate one loop.
2. Declare number of iterations.
3. proceed to game-ending situation, allowing for priority to pass around the table.
You cannot just demonstrate a loop and see if people want to concede. They can of course, concede at any time they want. I always make a point of going through the different steps and passing priority because it is the fair way to play.
So, next time you encounter this kind of situation, I would suggest that you ask the player to proceed through the different steps and phases and pass priority. Shortcutting the end of the game is not right - it is the most important part!
When I'm on the other side of this I always demonstrate a couple iterations of the loop before explaining.
That said if I have multiple forms of countering any interaction and can see that no one has anything sometimes I'll ask to be polite, and then explain afterwards when the right time / way to disrupt is if you have anything.
When I'm in the disrupter position I always ask them to play it out at least a couple iterations so 1) I understand the combo, and 2) I can disrupt if I desire.
There are rules governing this, at least the infinite loop stuff. I'm going to quote them, and then summarize my way of doing it after. If any newer players don't know there are actual rules for this kind of stuff, then sweet. I'll also have a TLDR thing at the bottom for everyone else.
720 in the comprehensive rules
720. Taking Shortcuts
720.1. When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually understood shortcuts rather than explicitly identifying each game choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes.
720.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely informal. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.
720.1b Occasionally the game gets into a state in which a set of actions could be repeated indefinitely (thus creating a “loop”). In that case, the shortcut rules can be used to determine how many times those actions are repeated without having to actually perform them, and how the loop is broken.
720.1c Tournaments use a modified version of the rules governing shortcuts and loops. These rules are covered in the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules (found at WPN.Wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents). Whenever the Tournament Rules contradict these rules during a tournament, the Tournament Rules take precedence.
720.2. Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure.
720.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
Example: A player controls a creature enchanted by Presence of Gond, which grants the creature the ability “{T}: Create a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token,” and another player controls Intruder Alarm, which reads, in part, “Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, untap all creatures.” When the player has priority, they may suggest “I’ll create a million tokens,” indicating the sequence of activating the creature’s ability, all players passing priority, letting the creature’s ability resolve and create a token (which causes Intruder Alarm’s ability to trigger), Intruder Alarm’s controller putting that triggered ability on the stack, all players passing priority, Intruder Alarm’s triggered ability resolving, all players passing priority until the player proposing the shortcut has priority, and repeating that sequence 999,999 more times, ending just after the last token-creating ability resolves.
720.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where they will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
Example: The active player draws a card during her draw step, then says, “Go.” The nonactive player is holding Into the Fray (an instant that says “Target creature attacks this turn if able”) and says, “I’d like to cast a spell during your beginning of combat step.” The current proposed shortcut is that all players pass priority at all opportunities during the turn until the nonactive player has priority during the beginning of combat step.
720.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.
720.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}: [This creature] gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability “{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.
720.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)
720.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.
Example: A player controls Seal of Cleansing, an enchantment that reads, “Sacrifice Seal of Cleansing: Destroy target artifact or enchantment.” A mandatory loop that involves an artifact begins. The player is not forced to sacrifice Seal of Cleansing to destroy the artifact and end the loop.
720.6. If a loop contains an effect that says “[A] unless [B],” where [A] and [B] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [B] to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [B], the loop will continue as though [A] were mandatory.
And 4.4 of the Tournament Rules
4.4 Loops
A loop is a form of tournament shortcut that involves detailing a sequence of actions to be repeated and then
performing a number of iterations of that sequence. The loop actions must be identical in each iteration and
cannot include conditional actions ("If this, then that".)
If no players are involved in maintaining the loop, each player in turn order chooses a number of iterations to
perform before they will take an action to break the loop or that they wish to take no action. If all players choose
to take no action, the game is a draw. Otherwise, the game advances through the lowest number of iterations
chosen and the player who chose that number takes an action to break the loop.
If one player is involved in maintaining the loop, they choose a number of iterations. The other players, in turn
order, agree to that number or announce a lower number after which they intend to intervene. The game advances
through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority.
If two or more players are involved in maintaining a loop within a turn, each player in turn order chooses a
number of iterations to perform. The game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the
player who chose that number receives priority.
Loops may span multiple turns if a game state is not meaningfully changing. Note that drawing cards other than
the ones being used to sustain the loop is a meaningful change. If two or more players are involved in maintaining
a loop across turns, each player chooses a number of iterations to perform, or announces their intent to continue
indefinitely. If all players choose to continue indefinitely, the game is a draw. Otherwise, the game advances
through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority at the
point they stop taking an action to sustain the loop.
A player intervening during a loop may specify that one iteration of the loop is only partly performed in order to
be able to take action at the appropriate point. If they do, the final iteration is only performed up to the chosen
point.
Non-deterministic loops (loops that rely on decision trees, probability or mathematical convergence) may not be
shortcut. A player attempting to execute a nondeterministic loop must stop if at any point during the process a
previous game state (or one identical in all relevant ways) is reached again. This happens most often in loops that
involve shuffling a library.
Some loops are sustained by choices rather than actions. In these cases, the rules above may be applied, with the
player making a different choice rather than ceasing to take an action. The game moves to the point where the
player makes that choice. If the choice involves hidden information, a judge may be needed to determine whether
any choice is available that will not continue the loop.
24
The judge is the final arbiter of what constitutes a loop. A player may not 'opt-out' of shortcutting a loop, nor may
they make irrelevant changes between iterations in an attempt to make it appear as though there is no loop. Once a
loop has been shortcut, it may not be restarted until the game has changed in a relevant way. Proposing loops as
an effort to use up time on the clock is Stalling.
I tend to lean towards the tourney rules, but a mix of both is where I end up landing on it.
Basically, the player should go through the loop at least once to show comprehension, cause, and effects of the loop. I've had many instances of new players being told that certain cards are an infinite combo that wins them the game, but not understanding how the combo works. I've also had some instances where I point out a potential infinite combo to an experienced player, run them through it after the game, and it take them numerous games to recognize when they have the cards for it, the steps you take to establish the loop, and what that does for you. It also helps to establish the combo's weaknesses and teaches them how to better fight other combos.
After establishing that the actions are indeed a repeatable loop, they state how many times they intend on repeating said loop. This is where it get's a bit complicated. If the loop doesn't effect all of their opponents, but is more of the Niv-Mizzet/Curiosity kind, then I insist on knowing their targets. Who loses first? Are you going to round-robin the damage? Questions like those let the table as a whole know when each of them would need to try to stop the loop. If the player comboing is going to target other players and eliminate them first, then I know I only need to stop the combo when they move to target me and let others be eliminated first. If the combo player chooses to round-robin the damage, then each player needs to think more carefully on when to stop the loop looking at remaining life totals and whether they can win the game from a low life point or if they need to stop the loop sooner.
Finally, is the interference. Now that the loop, it's number of iterations, and targets have been stated, people respond. "On the first instance of you targeting me, I'll Krosan Grip your Curiosity." This is where it get's a bit complicated. Nine times out of ten, the combo player just wins and very few have an answer up let alone it resolving. It's good practice to ask the other players "Are you going to try to stop this and when? I have an answer, but I'm not going to use it until you've lost.(or we're all at ~ life)" The goal is for people to state whether they're going to try and answer without people just slinging cards down and giving stuff away when another player is just going to say that they're going to stop the loop sooner than the first person to react, which is a huge problem when playing with newer or even some less experienced players.
TLDR: A lot of people that I play with tend to say GG and move on to the next game rather than sitting and doing nothing for 20+ minutes waiting to see if the combo fizzles at some point. Only exception is extra turns shenaningans where people only tend to scoop if they end up with 7 or more turns lined up. I like going through the motions if I have the time that night.
A lot of the time it also comes down to I am doing a loop to cast / resolve something after it with all the mana or storm or what have you so it is not the demonstration of the loop is the issue it is what is being used to do the killing and if that has protection.
A lot of the time it also comes down to I am doing a loop to cast / resolve something after it with all the mana or storm or what have you so it is not the demonstration of the loop is the issue it is what is being used to do the killing and if that has protection.
"Fully describe and demonstrate your loop and then each step to win."
If they do this and dont include describing steps to get protection such as Dunharrow mentioned above, then in think it is fair that you can interject at the appropriate time with your response and let the game proceed how it will.
If someone said "I've got mike trike in play so...gg?" And I said "play it out" because I had grave hate in hand, and they said "ummm...you know what, imma wait until next turn so I can keep up a counterspell" I'd be pretty pissed off. Declaring your combo is the same as performing it imo.
Yeah, the combo needs to be demonstrated at least once through. If it requires further steps in order to proceed to a win con this shouldn't even be in question, obviously.
If someone said "I've got mike trike in play so...gg?" And I said "play it out" because I had grave hate in hand, and they said "ummm...you know what, imma wait until next turn so I can keep up a counterspell" I'd be pretty pissed off. Declaring your combo is the same as performing it imo.
100% agreement with this. I think the best way to handle this is to say plainly that you expect a demonstration of the combo - if not for your benefit to understand how it works, also so that you are certain the combo player knows how it works. The onus is on them to demonstrably prove they know what they're doing, and that should always be the case. The above scenario as posted by Dirk does bring into question at what point you consider the combo to be tabled with no take backsies though. I guess this varies from setting to setting. If this were me, I'd be insisting that if they're prepared to say 'gg' that declares their intent, and allows other players to respond in turn.
If someone said "I've got mike trike in play so...gg?" And I said "play it out" because I had grave hate in hand, and they said "ummm...you know what, imma wait until next turn so I can keep up a counterspell" I'd be pretty pissed off. Declaring your combo is the same as performing it imo.
I mean, "I've got mike trike in play so...gg?" sounds like an attempt at proposing a shortcut to me. Which means you can interrupt the shortcut at any point you wish and respond. They've already committed to starting the combo, they don't get to wait and untap for counterspell mana.
That's what I'm saying - I don't think there's a reasonable way for the opponent to weasel out of it, as per OPs concerns.
Maybe if, say, you had annul in hand and mike trike has a counter but only 12 mana to cast the combo and just dumps it all at once. Then you kinda need to rewind and if they cast trike first they could counter your annul or something? Or say they had 14 mana and second guess in hand?
That's what I'm saying - I don't think there's a reasonable way for the opponent to weasel out of it, as per OPs concerns.
Maybe if, say, you had annul in hand and mike trike has a counter but only 12 mana to cast the combo and just dumps it all at once. Then you kinda need to rewind and if they cast trike first they could counter your annul or something? Or say they had 14 mana and second guess in hand?
That's the only way I can see a rewind happening in this scenario. It's fairly common for people to race ahead and assume no response as they play their bits anyway, so back tracking there isn't a major. The difference between that and saying 'gg' is pretty vast to me, though. 'gg' implies that they're going through with the combo, so weaseling out of that would piss me off. In fact, I probably wouldn't let them.
The only issue with the Mike and Trike scenario is by ahortcutting they didn't specify how they were directing each point of damage. If they intent to kill player 2, then 3, then me last, you can bet I'll let them proceed until I'm a target. But if they do one point each going around the table and repeat until we are all dead, then I won't let any part of the combo survive. So how do you project wanting to see that part of the combo without giving away your poaition?
I played against someone who T&N for Mike and Trike. He put it in play and said "I win". Someone asked if he knew how, he didn't. I explained the combo to him, because he was new to EDH.
I think it is very fair to ask someone to demonstrate the combo. In many situations you can feign ignorance and ask for it to be explained to you.
But if it is someone you play with a lot, you should be able to say - "So, you are comboing off?", and if they say yes, you say "I exile Trike the first time it goes to the yard".
I have also taken the habit of telling people, regardless of the situation, that I have open mana and they should slow down... or that someone else has open mana.
The only issue with the Mike and Trike scenario is by ahortcutting they didn't specify how they were directing each point of damage. If they intent to kill player 2, then 3, then me last, you can bet I'll let them proceed until I'm a target. But if they do one point each going around the table and repeat until we are all dead, then I won't let any part of the combo survive. So how do you project wanting to see that part of the combo without giving away your poaition?
I think here you still need to put the onus back on the combo player to state clearly their intentions at each point at which a decision is required. They can't just present the two cards and walk away from the table with a win. There is a level of risk that the player may infer you have answers, but it's a risk both you and them need to take.
The only issue with the Mike and Trike scenario is by ahortcutting they didn't specify how they were directing each point of damage. If they intent to kill player 2, then 3, then me last, you can bet I'll let them proceed until I'm a target. But if they do one point each going around the table and repeat until we are all dead, then I won't let any part of the combo survive. So how do you project wanting to see that part of the combo without giving away your poaition?
I always just ask what order they're going in. Of course, this works for me because I play in tournaments at my LGS where the order you get taken out matters, so it doesn't really show that I have an answer. You could always rules lawyer and tell them that before you shortcut, the loop has to be displayed and then decide based on how they show it.
I'm quite lucky in my playgroup that we uphold curtesy for each other in terms of situations like this. Also, being a solidarity player, i'm also in the habit of making one move, then pausing to ask "resolves?" before continuing.. and also making notes when i start making stacks that have 7 or more triggers/spells/whatevers on it.
Unfortunately, i happen to also be one of the few who's played magic for a long time, and they usually expect me to answer everything with some old-school tech. So we all basically got into the habit of just doing a step, and then asking "resolves?" and then expect me to pull everyone else from the jaws of defeat with some weird corner case silver bullet.
The trickiness of the situation is really a question of whether or not everyone agrees to the same social conduct in-game - i.e. taking shortcuts or not. If the group is used to not taking shortcuts on the first round of the infinite loop, then it makes the combo-off-er happier when they get trickbinded (or at least it was a fair shot), and it doesn't tip the hand of those who dorunanswers.
one confession though - i've been the ::insert whatever malicious adjective here:: combo-off-er once before, when i just threw an abeyance on the only player who played blue at the table, tipped my hand and said i win.... even though i couldn't actually go off (ya can't lotus petal through a null rod). Worked though, but i felt pretty bad about it when everyone else scooped. Anyways, from that point on, i made it a thing for myself and others to try to at least scrutinise how everything works.
The guy in my group who has a few "I win" combos still makes a point of describing how each section of the loop works and the intended goal. So "ok, looping these cards generates infinite mana, then I Beast Within all your permanents, then I create infinite hasty tokens, then I swing". And if we have interaction we can go "ok, first Beast Within cast I Dissipate it". We don't generally worry about which person he's wiping the board of first.
I'm quite lucky in my playgroup that we uphold curtesy for each other in terms of situations like this. Also, being a solidarity player, i'm also in the habit of making one move, then pausing to ask "resolves?" before continuing.. and also making notes when i start making stacks that have 7 or more triggers/spells/whatevers on it.
This is where the answer is, for me. Communication, people need to learn how to do it. It's all well and good someone comboing off, we all get they wanna do that, but this game isn't solitaire, and almost every action you take in this game has a responding answer, so people really should just give courtesy and acknowledge that step rather than assuming the game is in the bag. It's not even a courtesy, it's a step that happens as a part of the game's rules, so if someone is not acknowledging that the onus is on them to do so.
I'm quite lucky in my playgroup that we uphold curtesy for each other in terms of situations like this. Also, being a solidarity player, i'm also in the habit of making one move, then pausing to ask "resolves?" before continuing.. and also making notes when i start making stacks that have 7 or more triggers/spells/whatevers on it.
This is where the answer is, for me. Communication, people need to learn how to do it. It's all well and good someone comboing off, we all get they wanna do that, but this game isn't solitaire, and almost every action you take in this game has a responding answer, so people really should just give courtesy and acknowledge that step rather than assuming the game is in the bag. It's not even a courtesy, it's a step that happens as a part of the game's rules, so if someone is not acknowledging that the onus is on them to do so.
Didn't think of this earlier either, but many of us also play the brinksmanship game (i.e. "play craterhoof behemoth.. craterhoof on the stack. response?" and then just watch that shifty-eyed mono-U control player next to the craterhoof player eye up the other guy who's playing some UR spellslinger player and says "nah, i got nothing" even though they clearly have a counter). It's part of the game where you really need to hope that your one dissipate in-hand is worth risking someone else having the answer. Or at the least, an opt so you can respond to the stack on the next once-round.
But about the courtesy/communication thing, it's what makes the game buy-in so important. it's sort of courtesy i feel if we're all gonna be adults about playing in the same magic circle as the others (and that we're able to give and take whats ok).
I'm pretty happy my group is able to put up with my shenanigans, and i in turn don't bring out my child lands deck.
this has been an interesting list of thoughts though i must say. never really reflected on the actual formalities of going off before.
Here is the thing - I would rather not win by tricking my opponent into letting their guard down. If they can protect their combo, they should, and I accept that if they explaining their combo to get concessions it is more to save time than anything.
This. If the only reason I don’t lose is because someone mis-played, then I won’t internalize that much differently than a loss. I am ostensibly developing my deck to respond to the situations my play group poses, and no response here, so the way I see it I came up empty, either way.
No sense in trying to trick someone into shortcutting just so I can rewind the tape to the point I want. Not fulfilling. That being the case, I don’t mind whether going through the motions raises their alertness. They either have a way through the disruption, or they don’t.
I'm quite lucky in my playgroup that we uphold curtesy for each other in terms of situations like this. Also, being a solidarity player, i'm also in the habit of making one move, then pausing to ask "resolves?" before continuing.. and also making notes when i start making stacks that have 7 or more triggers/spells/whatevers on it.
This is where the answer is, for me. Communication, people need to learn how to do it. It's all well and good someone comboing off, we all get they wanna do that, but this game isn't solitaire, and almost every action you take in this game has a responding answer, so people really should just give courtesy and acknowledge that step rather than assuming the game is in the bag. It's not even a courtesy, it's a step that happens as a part of the game's rules, so if someone is not acknowledging that the onus is on them to do so.
This also. If you legitimately have a playgroup that enjoys playing combo, then they probably enjoy the phase of the game where they’re probing for answers, going through priority, etc. If you have a situation where someone draws it and by experience they don’t even need to ask, that probably indicates some playgroup issues. In all likelihood if the other side of the table never has an answer and is never expected to have one, it’s not something that they want to play against.
For positive examples of how combo situations should be handled, I recommend watching a video from Laboratory Maniacs on YouTube. The way that they do it is exactly how it should be done. One player announces spell, then each player in turn order confirms whether priority is being passed. When everyone passes, it moves on to the next object on the stack. So on. It takes a long time, but games are also quick in terms of number of turns in. And if you don’t like playing this way, chances are you don’t like playing against combo. Fix your group.
Announcing i've got infinite combo I win just screams of desperation to win.
Putting in infinite combos that you copied off the internet that you don't even know how to resolve is also a sign of taking it too seriously.
Just play to the best of your ability, improve and learn each game and let wins come around naturally without forcing it.
I prefer "sleeve up or proxy infinite combos and goldfish them so you know how they work and how to disrupt them". It will make you a better player even if you don't personally want to play them in your deck.
You are sitting there with some form of way in your hand to not die to the combo being presented and want to tell the person to play it out without also signalling that you indeed have something in hand and that they should dig a little farther for some extra forms of protection.
Anyone have any good ways to navigate this? I generally say I want to see if the person will screw something up and choose not to concede and that seems to work.
Also, I think your current strategy is fitting: you don't want to give the game away. Plenty of combo decks can have a 1% chance of not winning or the player can realize they needed 1 more mana, or 1 card that is their hand needs to be in the library or something--so it is quite reasonable. But I would say my way is less aggressive; "I don't I think you're a bad player, I just have this rule that I watch people go through their combo."
Modern
URGTemur ScapeshiftGRU
EDH
WGKarametra EnchantressGW
UBGSidisi, Brood Tyrant ReanimatorGBU
UBRKess DoomsdayRBU
WBGGhave TokensGBW
WUBZur RebelsBUW
WUBErtai CursesBUW
WRFiresong and Sunspeaker Spell SlingerRW
Since you seem to have indicated that you've done this, then interject at the point where they described as if you had responded when they were playing it out. It's a two way street, if I let you shortcut you have to let me shortcut and accept my response.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
1. They have an infinite combo that wins on the spot. You make them perform one loop 'to show it' and you disrupt the loop.
2. They have an infinite combo that needs to proceed to another step - for example, they can make infinite creatures with haste, and you have an Aetherspouts. This is tough, because if you are not scooping, obviously you have an answer. So, maybe they decide to cast sorcery speed tutor to get a counterspell (which they should have done anyway).
I feel like if they can dig for a counter, they are supposed to no matter what. If nobody scoops to infinite creatures, then they will tutor for it. If everyone scoops, he didn't waste everyone's time. I think this is more of a shortcut than you tipping the person off that they need an answer.
But this is also a simplified example. Maybe the answer they dig for changes depending on which person is not scooping. If you have a sac outlet and Academy Rector in play and Pernicious Deed in your deck, they should tutor for a boros charm or something similar.
I agree that this gets a little touchy. Some combos may require very specific answers too. I remember my opponent had Azami, lady of Scrolls and Mind over Matter. Usually, people scoop to this since they just draw their deck, play laboratory Maniac, and draw another card. I had Sudden Death in hand and did not scoop. My opponent therefore decided to play out Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir before playing Laboratory Maniac to protect himself. Teferi protected him from the only possible interaction that could change the outcome of the game at that point. It was correct to play Teferi. But, if I could have feigned ignorance and said "show me how you win", maybe I could have 'got him'.
Here is the thing - I would rather not win by tricking my opponent into letting their guard down. If they can protect their combo, they should, and I accept that if they explaining their combo to get concessions it is more to save time than anything.
I remember another game where an opponent attacked everyone for Lethal. We all started scooping... then after about 30 seconds someone goes "well, I have an answer", and played Darkness. It was annoying for the people who started scooping to start figuring out what they had in play and in hand and in their graveyard.
So, I think the better line is that the person who is comboing out or who is attacking for lethal should not be fishing for concessions but should shortcut in this manner:
1. Demonstrate one loop.
2. Declare number of iterations.
3. proceed to game-ending situation, allowing for priority to pass around the table.
You cannot just demonstrate a loop and see if people want to concede. They can of course, concede at any time they want. I always make a point of going through the different steps and passing priority because it is the fair way to play.
So, next time you encounter this kind of situation, I would suggest that you ask the player to proceed through the different steps and phases and pass priority. Shortcutting the end of the game is not right - it is the most important part!
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
That said if I have multiple forms of countering any interaction and can see that no one has anything sometimes I'll ask to be polite, and then explain afterwards when the right time / way to disrupt is if you have anything.
When I'm in the disrupter position I always ask them to play it out at least a couple iterations so 1) I understand the combo, and 2) I can disrupt if I desire.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
720 in the comprehensive rules
And 4.4 of the Tournament Rules
I tend to lean towards the tourney rules, but a mix of both is where I end up landing on it.
Basically, the player should go through the loop at least once to show comprehension, cause, and effects of the loop. I've had many instances of new players being told that certain cards are an infinite combo that wins them the game, but not understanding how the combo works. I've also had some instances where I point out a potential infinite combo to an experienced player, run them through it after the game, and it take them numerous games to recognize when they have the cards for it, the steps you take to establish the loop, and what that does for you. It also helps to establish the combo's weaknesses and teaches them how to better fight other combos.
After establishing that the actions are indeed a repeatable loop, they state how many times they intend on repeating said loop. This is where it get's a bit complicated. If the loop doesn't effect all of their opponents, but is more of the Niv-Mizzet/Curiosity kind, then I insist on knowing their targets. Who loses first? Are you going to round-robin the damage? Questions like those let the table as a whole know when each of them would need to try to stop the loop. If the player comboing is going to target other players and eliminate them first, then I know I only need to stop the combo when they move to target me and let others be eliminated first. If the combo player chooses to round-robin the damage, then each player needs to think more carefully on when to stop the loop looking at remaining life totals and whether they can win the game from a low life point or if they need to stop the loop sooner.
Finally, is the interference. Now that the loop, it's number of iterations, and targets have been stated, people respond. "On the first instance of you targeting me, I'll Krosan Grip your Curiosity." This is where it get's a bit complicated. Nine times out of ten, the combo player just wins and very few have an answer up let alone it resolving. It's good practice to ask the other players "Are you going to try to stop this and when? I have an answer, but I'm not going to use it until you've lost.(or we're all at ~ life)" The goal is for people to state whether they're going to try and answer without people just slinging cards down and giving stuff away when another player is just going to say that they're going to stop the loop sooner than the first person to react, which is a huge problem when playing with newer or even some less experienced players.
TLDR: A lot of people that I play with tend to say GG and move on to the next game rather than sitting and doing nothing for 20+ minutes waiting to see if the combo fizzles at some point. Only exception is extra turns shenaningans where people only tend to scoop if they end up with 7 or more turns lined up. I like going through the motions if I have the time that night.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
"Fully describe and demonstrate your loop and then each step to win."
If they do this and dont include describing steps to get protection such as Dunharrow mentioned above, then in think it is fair that you can interject at the appropriate time with your response and let the game proceed how it will.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
100% agreement with this. I think the best way to handle this is to say plainly that you expect a demonstration of the combo - if not for your benefit to understand how it works, also so that you are certain the combo player knows how it works. The onus is on them to demonstrably prove they know what they're doing, and that should always be the case. The above scenario as posted by Dirk does bring into question at what point you consider the combo to be tabled with no take backsies though. I guess this varies from setting to setting. If this were me, I'd be insisting that if they're prepared to say 'gg' that declares their intent, and allows other players to respond in turn.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Maybe if, say, you had annul in hand and mike trike has a counter but only 12 mana to cast the combo and just dumps it all at once. Then you kinda need to rewind and if they cast trike first they could counter your annul or something? Or say they had 14 mana and second guess in hand?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
That's the only way I can see a rewind happening in this scenario. It's fairly common for people to race ahead and assume no response as they play their bits anyway, so back tracking there isn't a major. The difference between that and saying 'gg' is pretty vast to me, though. 'gg' implies that they're going through with the combo, so weaseling out of that would piss me off. In fact, I probably wouldn't let them.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think it is very fair to ask someone to demonstrate the combo. In many situations you can feign ignorance and ask for it to be explained to you.
But if it is someone you play with a lot, you should be able to say - "So, you are comboing off?", and if they say yes, you say "I exile Trike the first time it goes to the yard".
I have also taken the habit of telling people, regardless of the situation, that I have open mana and they should slow down... or that someone else has open mana.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I think here you still need to put the onus back on the combo player to state clearly their intentions at each point at which a decision is required. They can't just present the two cards and walk away from the table with a win. There is a level of risk that the player may infer you have answers, but it's a risk both you and them need to take.
I always just ask what order they're going in. Of course, this works for me because I play in tournaments at my LGS where the order you get taken out matters, so it doesn't really show that I have an answer. You could always rules lawyer and tell them that before you shortcut, the loop has to be displayed and then decide based on how they show it.
Unfortunately, i happen to also be one of the few who's played magic for a long time, and they usually expect me to answer everything with some old-school tech. So we all basically got into the habit of just doing a step, and then asking "resolves?" and then expect me to pull everyone else from the jaws of defeat with some weird corner case silver bullet.
The trickiness of the situation is really a question of whether or not everyone agrees to the same social conduct in-game - i.e. taking shortcuts or not. If the group is used to not taking shortcuts on the first round of the infinite loop, then it makes the combo-off-er happier when they get trickbinded (or at least it was a fair shot), and it doesn't tip the hand of those who do run answers.
one confession though - i've been the ::insert whatever malicious adjective here:: combo-off-er once before, when i just threw an abeyance on the only player who played blue at the table, tipped my hand and said i win.... even though i couldn't actually go off (ya can't lotus petal through a null rod). Worked though, but i felt pretty bad about it when everyone else scooped. Anyways, from that point on, i made it a thing for myself and others to try to at least scrutinise how everything works.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
This is where the answer is, for me. Communication, people need to learn how to do it. It's all well and good someone comboing off, we all get they wanna do that, but this game isn't solitaire, and almost every action you take in this game has a responding answer, so people really should just give courtesy and acknowledge that step rather than assuming the game is in the bag. It's not even a courtesy, it's a step that happens as a part of the game's rules, so if someone is not acknowledging that the onus is on them to do so.
Didn't think of this earlier either, but many of us also play the brinksmanship game (i.e. "play craterhoof behemoth.. craterhoof on the stack. response?" and then just watch that shifty-eyed mono-U control player next to the craterhoof player eye up the other guy who's playing some UR spellslinger player and says "nah, i got nothing" even though they clearly have a counter). It's part of the game where you really need to hope that your one dissipate in-hand is worth risking someone else having the answer. Or at the least, an opt so you can respond to the stack on the next once-round.
But about the courtesy/communication thing, it's what makes the game buy-in so important. it's sort of courtesy i feel if we're all gonna be adults about playing in the same magic circle as the others (and that we're able to give and take whats ok).
I'm pretty happy my group is able to put up with my shenanigans, and i in turn don't bring out my child lands deck.
this has been an interesting list of thoughts though i must say. never really reflected on the actual formalities of going off before.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
This. If the only reason I don’t lose is because someone mis-played, then I won’t internalize that much differently than a loss. I am ostensibly developing my deck to respond to the situations my play group poses, and no response here, so the way I see it I came up empty, either way.
No sense in trying to trick someone into shortcutting just so I can rewind the tape to the point I want. Not fulfilling. That being the case, I don’t mind whether going through the motions raises their alertness. They either have a way through the disruption, or they don’t.
This also. If you legitimately have a playgroup that enjoys playing combo, then they probably enjoy the phase of the game where they’re probing for answers, going through priority, etc. If you have a situation where someone draws it and by experience they don’t even need to ask, that probably indicates some playgroup issues. In all likelihood if the other side of the table never has an answer and is never expected to have one, it’s not something that they want to play against.
For positive examples of how combo situations should be handled, I recommend watching a video from Laboratory Maniacs on YouTube. The way that they do it is exactly how it should be done. One player announces spell, then each player in turn order confirms whether priority is being passed. When everyone passes, it moves on to the next object on the stack. So on. It takes a long time, but games are also quick in terms of number of turns in. And if you don’t like playing this way, chances are you don’t like playing against combo. Fix your group.
Putting in infinite combos that you copied off the internet that you don't even know how to resolve is also a sign of taking it too seriously.
Just play to the best of your ability, improve and learn each game and let wins come around naturally without forcing it.
I prefer "sleeve up or proxy infinite combos and goldfish them so you know how they work and how to disrupt them". It will make you a better player even if you don't personally want to play them in your deck.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg