'Infinte' Turns Combos

[Aneximines]

Of all the things you can get arbitrarily many of, turns is my favorite. Here are all the ways I know to take limitless consecutive turns:


Time sorceries - Time Walk, Time Warp, Beacon of Tomorrows, Time Stretch:

Time sorcery + Panoptic Mirror

Time sorcery + Spellweaver Helix +
a buyback sorcery (Seething Anger, Lab Rats), Revive, Relearn, or Burning Wish

Time sorcery + Planar Portal + Soldevi Digger

Time sorcery + an empty library (Hermit Druid, Leveler, etc.) + Anurid Scavenger/Soldevi Digger/etc.

Time sorcery + Eternal Witness/Anarchist + Soul Foundry/Sunken Hope/Crystal Shard/Erratic Portal/Vedalken Mastermind/etc.

Time sorcery + Isochron Scepter + Reap + Distorting Lens

Time sorcery + Isochron Scepter + Reclaim (+ card drawing)

Time sorcery + limitless mana (that can be blue) + Mischievous Quanar

(note: Final Fortune can usually work in place of time sorcery if you control a Time Vault)

Beacon of Tomorrows +
--Leveler, and other library-removing effects
--Planar Portal
--Bringer of the Black Dawn
--Isochron Scepter with Mystical Tutor or Vampiric Tutor
--Spellweaver Helix + Demonic Tutor/Diabolic Tutor


Final Fortune + Isochron Scepter/Panoptic Mirror +
--Time Vault
--Platinum Angel
--Stifle + Isochron Scepter/Panoptic Mirror
--Time Stop + Panoptic Mirror (you only get upkeeps, though)


Second Chance + enchantment recursion.

For the recursion, you could use Hanna, Ships Navigator, Skull of Orm, Eternal Witness + Soul Foundry, or Hells Caretaker + 2 Auramancers.

To get/keep your life low, you could use Wall of Blood, Mischievous Poltergeist, Ethereal Champion, Form of the Dragon, or Spatial Binding. It might be a good idea to have Worship or Ivory Mask out to ward off direct damage.


Magistrates Scepter + Pemmins Aura on Aphetto Alchemist + a creature or artifact that you can tap for at least (Gilded Lotus, Wirewood Channeler and another elf, Lumengrid + Fertile Ground, Nantuko Elder + Mycosynth Lattice, Metalworker + Gemstone Array, etc.)

Magistrates Scepter + Coretapper +
--Skeleton Shard
--Dawn of the Dead + Leonin Elder/Scrapheap/etc.
--Lifeline + another creature

Magistrates Scepter + Energy Chambers, Coretappers, and Power Conduit s

4 Magistrates Scepters (Copy Artifact, Sculpting Steel) (stagger them so that each turn one of them is ready to produce an extra turn)


Wormfang Manta +
--Vanishing
--Vodalian Illusionist
--Reality Ripple in a Scepter
--Teferis Veil (+ Maze of Ith or something if there are flying blockers)
--2 Teferis Curses + another Wormfang Manta
(Phasing triggers leaves-play abilities but not comes-into-play abilities.)
--Endless Whispers + a sacrificial tool (Altar of Dementia, etc.) + a way to steal the Manta each turn (Vedalken Shackles, Rubinia Soulsinger, Rootwater Matriarch + Slow Motion, etc.)


Mindslaver + Lethal Vapors + Vedalken Orrery, Vernal Equinox, Abeyance, or City of Solitude

Mindslaver + Time Vault + Donate

Mindslaver can also let you control all of your opponent's turns. For example:
Mindslaver + Goblin Welder + Nuisance Engine (or any source of artifacts)
Mindslaver + Bringer of the White Dawn
Mindslaver + Hanna, Ships Navigator
Mindslaver + Panoptic Mirror + Argivian Restoration


Timesifter + Panoptic Mirror + Living Wish + Penance + Draco

Timesifter + Spellweaver Helix (Imprinted with Seething Anger and Living Wish) + Putrid Imp + Haunted Crossroads + Draco

(there is a small chance that your opponent will reveal a Draco. If this worries you try Extract or Jesters Cap)


Unstable Hulk + Donate + Break Open-in-a-Scepter + Backslide-in-a-Scepter


Seedtime-in-a-Scepter + Sleight of Mind + Celestial Dawn + Healing Salve-in-a-Scepter + Phage + Shades Form/Summoners Egg + 3 Donates + Aphetto Alchemist + Argothian Elder + a way to deal four damage to a creature each turn (Donate the Sleighted Dawn, Healing Scepter and the Shade's Form that's on Phage or the Egg containing Phage; damage Phage or the Egg to death each turn; if they don't save it with the Healing Scepter they lose, if they do, play Seedtime; untap their Scepter and lands with the Alchemist and Elder)


By the way, you can avoid decking yourself with draw phases with
Soldevi Digger
Tel-jilad Stylus
Words of Wilding, War, Waste, Wind, and Worship
Obstinate Familiar
Platinum Angel
Pursuit of Knowledge
2 Reminisces
2 Paradigm Shifts
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Necropotence
Symbiotic Development
Recycle (don't play cards on an empty library, though)
Parallel Thoughts
Mangaras Tome
Ivory Gargoyle + something to sacrifice to
Legacy Weapon, Serra Avatar, or Darksteel Colossus + a way to discard (Putrid Imp, Dawnstrider, etc.)



This is all I know of. Contributions would be appreciated.

 

[Oversoul]

Time sorcery + spell copying (Fork or whatever) + Timetwister (I call this deck Hel, Goddess of Death! and it uses four each of the P10, Fork, Wheel of Fortune, some other cards, easily taking infinite turns starting on turn 1).

Also, the old Extended featured Turbo-Oath, which would Oath up a single Battlefield Scrounger (or simply play it after using its Exploration + Horn of Greed thingy), and use Time Warps to take infinite turns.

 

[Nightstalkers]

Originally posted by Aneximines
Final Fortune + Isochron Scepter + Time Vault

Final Fortune + Isochron Scepter + Platinum Angel

Final Fortune + Isochron Scepter + Stifle + Isochron Scepter

Well... if you take a next turn, you'd lose at the end of that turn, but you'd get another turn after that one... But you've still lost and the game is over.... Isn't that right?

 

[Oversoul]

Originally posted by Nightstalkers
Well... if you take a next turn, you'd lose at the end of that turn, but you'd get another turn after that one... But you've still lost and the game is over.... Isn't that right?

Not sure what you're asking. Could you perhaps clarify which one of those three combos you're talking about?

 

[Nightstalkers]

The first one actually. Unless you use a nullifier to neutralize the lose effect, you'll end up losing even if you have it dumped onto a scepter and using time vault.

Meh... gotta use the darned Angel or the Stifle anyways then.

 

[Oversoul]

No, because you skip the Final Fortune turn with Time Vault. That means you do not take the turn, and do not lose the game at the end of it (because it never happens). Then you're able to use Time Vault to take another turn. Then you use Scepter's ability to Final Fortune, but skip the Final Fortune turn with Time Vault...

 

[Rooser]

final fortune - vault combo does in fact work, I think.

Right now my pet combo deck is going to be Beacon of Tommorows with an empty library. Not sure how I'm going to kill them once I set up the situation, but infinite turns are infinite turns.

 

[Exaulted_Leader]

My favorite used to be:

Infinite mana combo of choice + Time spell of choice + Mischievous Quanar


Then I found out that 'Infinite' anything combos:

A) Suck.

B) Are no fun.

 

[Oversoul]

I disagree completely. Infinite combos can be both potent and fun...

 

[Exaulted_Leader]

They work? Yeah (Worldgorger proves that fact time and time again).

'Fun'?

To me, after a couple of uses, 'infinite' anything became a lot more like doing the same mathematical equation over and over again than playing a game. Granted, MtG has a very math-oriented structure - but it's the dynamics and manipulation of that structure that give it it's appeal, for me.

Infinite combos are always very specific in nature, without any real dynamics (this and this work together like this, in this specific fashion, to do this unto infinitum - providing fuel for this). It's like piecing a puzzle together, without any real interaction with your fellow player(s) until you finally 'let loose' (forgive me for not considering the occassional blurt of "Force of Will" as 'interaction'). Who's the combo guy at a multiplayer table? The guy who sits there and ignores everyone else, playing-out seemingly mindless cards while hidden behind a War Tax or similar barrier, and always complains about plays he 'never had a chance to respond to' because his mind wasn't actually on the game.

It's probably the same reason I think much of the color Blue was an idiot's idea (...Yet, at the same time, the reason I really, really like U/R Fish), and why I really like Multiplayer games.


But, as they say, whatever - it's just my opinion on the matter. Unless we're talking fully powered Bargain or Worldgorger, my answer to combo guys is just to beat them dead. ;P

 

[Oversoul]

Originally posted by Exaulted_Leader
They work? Yeah (Worldgorger proves that fact time and time again).

'Fun'?

To me, after a couple of uses, 'infinite' anything became a lot more like doing the same mathematical equation over and over again than playing a game. Granted, MtG has a very math-oriented structure - but it's the dynamics and manipulation of that structure that give it it's appeal, for me.

Infinite combos are always very specific in nature, without any real dynamics (this and this work together like this, in this specific fashion, to do this unto infinitum - providing fuel for this). It's like piecing a puzzle together, without any real interaction with your fellow player(s) until you finally 'let loose' (forgive me for not considering the occassional blurt of "Force of Will" as 'interaction'). Who's the combo guy at a multiplayer table? The guy who sits there and ignores everyone else, playing-out seemingly mindless cards while hidden behind a War Tax or similar barrier, and always complains about plays he 'never had a chance to respond to' because his mind wasn't actually on the game.

It's probably the same reason I think much of the color Blue was an idiot's idea (...Yet, at the same time, the reason I really, really like U/R Fish), and why I really like Multiplayer games.


But, as they say, whatever - it's just my opinion on the matter. Unless we're talking fully powered Bargain or Worldgorger, my answer to combo guys is just to beat them dead. ;P

Well, the first part of your post seems to disagree with the idea of infinite combos on the basis of flavor. I don't feel that way myself, but I know that many people do have a problem with infinite combos for that reason...

But then you attack combo players in general. Well, I'm a combo player (actually, I guess I play all styles of decks, mostly aggro these days, but combo has ALWAYS been my favorite).

Combos do not have to be mindless. The best combo decks are based on synergies between unlike cards and very finely tuned for performance. I think in most formats that combo is the hardest type of deck to play. The decks have to be constructed perfectly and played perfectly. A flaw in the deck or a simply mistake by the pilot can bring instant defeat. It is very skill intensive, even if the end result is to attempt to avoid giving the opponent a chance to do a thing about it (I think prison decks share many of these elements and prison is another favorite of mine). Goblin Charbelcher decks are quite dissimilar to what I describe and that's sort of the reason that I hate Belcher: it's not a combo component but a kill card by itself.

Of the cards that are restricted in Type I, a dozen or so (conservative estimate, probably, but it's probably pretty close) are on that list because they are too powerful as combo components. That says something about how powerful combo decks are. But they are challenging too. How many people play combo in Type I? How many people play control? If combo decks were easy to play, more people would play them. If they were no good, they would never win tournaments (and they sometimes do).

Also War Tax sucks and is a definitely a control card and not a combo card...

 

[Exaulted_Leader]

Honestly, I think we may be talking about two different tpyes of decks.

By 'combo', I mean stuff like Aluren/Hary and Worldgorger/Animate Dead. You aren't arguing that these decks are 'skill intensive'?

"I Bazaar Worldgorger into my 'yard. Then I cast Animate Dead, targetting 'Gorger." "I Swords the Dragon." "Force of Will."

Or, in another example:

"I play Cavern Harpy, followed by Aluren." "I Disenchant Aluren." "Force of Will."

I missed the part where skillful play came to the forefront. Yes, deckbuilding around engines like those for maximum efficiency while adding your own personal touches is a challenge - but then, the same is true for deckbuilding when it comes to any archetype.

My intent wasn't to attack, berate or insult combo players as a whole, either - so I apologize that message came through. My example was an exagerration, though it did perfectly put our playing group's Spike on display.

 

[Oversoul]

I cannot speak for Aluren, since I've never tried it. I do know that Dragon is a very tough deck to play. Building a Dragon deck that can play around hate (and playing it around the hate successfully, for that matter) is not easy.

I think the "Timmy, Johnny, Spike" thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I don't know why the players acknowledge it. You can't just lump everyone into three stupid (and flawed, but that's another topic) categories.

That said, supposedly "Spike" is one who does not care what he plays so long as he wins. I would think Spike would play control, since control wins more than other types of decks. Just look at tournament results...

Although there are definitely more pretenders out there that THINK it would be fun to play combos, usually without understanding them very well, and just looking for the quick win. You've already touched on how to beat such players. "Just beat them down."

I think the same could be said for anyone who tries to play a deck without understanding it (or netdeckers, as many like to call them).

 

[Spiderman]

think the "Timmy, Johnny, Spike" thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I don't know why the players acknowledge it. You can't just lump everyone into three stupid (and flawed, but that's another topic) categories.

This is going off-topic, but of course it's a over-generalized ay of categorizing Magic players. Hardly anyone is going to fit in just one category, but most people have leanings toward one, some, or share equally in all. It's just a similar way of categorizing decks into aggro, control, and combo (except perhaps deck categorizing is more clear).

 

[Oversoul]

Originally posted by Spiderman
This is going off-topic, but of course it's a over-generalized ay of categorizing Magic players. Hardly anyone is going to fit in just one category, but most people have leanings toward one, some, or share equally in all. It's just a similar way of categorizing decks into aggro, control, and combo (except perhaps deck categorizing is more clear).

Well, the first one: "Timmy likes 'em big." Everyone tends to assume that this means creatures. It could mean any number of things. Timmy likes big life totals. Timmy likes big amounts of damage. Timmy likes big winning streaks. Timmy likes big group games...

The second one is the worst: "Johnny likes 'em cool." Cool just so happens to be among the most subjective words in the universe. The only thing that this tells us is that Timmy is also Johnny, since Timmy amlost certainly equates "big" with "cool."

"Spike doesn't care, just as long as he wins" (or something like that) is a bit more exclusive. But it does not tell us whether or not it means Spike is a cheater. One could take it both ways. More importantly, Spike probably thinks that winning is cool. Spike is also Johnny.

It appears that everyone who plays Magic is named Johnny...

 

[Istanbul]

Originally posted by Oversoul
The second one is the worst: "Johnny likes 'em cool." Cool just so happens to be among the most subjective words in the universe. The only thing that this tells us is that Timmy is also Johnny, since Timmy amlost certainly equates "big" with "cool."

Not...exactly. Johnny likes it INTERESTING. Johnny likes to play Aether Flash with Repercussions. Johnny looks at Storm and thinks "Arcane Laboratory". Johnny doesn't care about big, or about winning, he's just interested in having his interesting and ingenious plan work.

Or, to put it another way...
Timmy, Johnny, and Spike sit down for a game of Super Smash Bros. Melee. They get to the stage where you fight all the Links in search of the Triforce.
Timmy doesn't care how many Links he fights, so long as he kills Link at over 200% damage and with a smash attack.
Johnny wants to fight each Link, and defeat each one using a different move, or maybe defeat all the wandering monsters.
Spike wants to get the Triforce as fast as possible. Without fighting any Links, if at all possible.

 

[Oversoul]

What you're describing though, is a preference toward overkill, complexity, and efficiency. That's not really how WotC has described them as far as I've seen (and they do say "cool" for Johnny).

There are other preferences people can have, anyway. And one could fit into multiple categories. I don't think that they adequately describe the player base at all...

 

[Spiderman]

I can't remember the article or who wrote it, but if you're confused and unclear, perhaps the writer didn't do a good job. I've heard the terms thrown around way back in the days of the Dojo or similar (late 90's), so perhaps the writer assumed the readers had a base knowledge of the terms.

I've always assumed Timmy's "big" referred to creatures, as in they're star-struck when they open their first Craw Wurm. "Big winning streaks" seem to be more applicable to a Spike since he wants to win. "Big life totals" seems to be more a Johnny, since you start a fixed number and usually go down. To actively increase it, you're looking for "cool" ways to do it. "Big amounts of damage" is probably the same for Timmy if it's done by creatures, Johnny if it's done a "cool" way. And big group games doesn't really fit, as it's the play-group structure and not how one plays the game itself.

Who cares whether you need to know if Spike is cheating in order to win? I'm not sure how that is relevant.

And the writer also probably made the disclaimer that people generally fit in multiple categories, those were just the big overall reaching ones.

Frankly, I think you're analyzing it too much if you have to go into what "big" means or whether someone is cheating since they like to win. They're just categories, take 'em or leave 'em.

 

[Oversoul]

I'm not confused in the least (this time). I'm familiar with the terms. I think that they are inadequate. I see no reason to use them. The only thing I'm unclear on is why others have continued to use these terms for so long...

If you look at it as...

Timmy=big creatures
Spike=winning at all costs
Johnny=unusual stuff of all sorts

Then to begin with, Timmy is at a horrible disadvantage. Big creatures are pretty redundant and usually easy to beat...

Spike is probably having no fun whatsoever playing the game, as he is fully focused on winning. And he's blowing a lot of money too, because in order to maximize his potential to win, he needs to...

Johnny clearly has an edge over Timmy, since he has so many options. Although in all descriptions I recall, Johnny was also someone who gave no thought to winning in the long run, and would happily lose nine games as long as he won a tenth game with his stupid creation.

I would not want to be ANY of these people. But aside from that...

What about Larry, who likes small creatures?
Bo, who seeks to end games as quickly as possible?
Or how about Lisa, who draws games on for as long as possible?
Evan, who enjoys dismantling Johnny's deck after it has seemingly won?
Rusty, who doesn't care what happens as long as Spike loses?
Steve, who strongly dislikes sweeping generalizations?

 

[Spiderman]

Because if you get into THAT deep of an analysis of people playing the game, you're going to need a moniker for literally everyone, as each person will say "well, I'm part of Sue and part of Johnny and part of Lisa, so overall that makes me Ken".

The three generalizations are just meant to be the "big pot". The majority of new players don't go for small creatures, they gravitate for the big ones and that's really what the Johnny description is geared towards (as in, this new expansion has some creatures "Johnny" would like- someone new getting into the game). The other two are just... generalizations, you can break them down on how they achieve their goals any way you like. Since they've been around for so long, they're just a convenient way to describe players in general quickly.