Anyone tried the infinite combo?

Discussion in 'Transformers Trading Card Game (TCG) Discussion' started by That Guy, Apr 9, 2019.

  1. That Guy

    That Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Posts:
    3,024
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +1,251
    Ebay:
    If you haven't heard, there is a decklist going around using Chromia, Swoop, Prowl (but mainly Chromia) a lot of card draw, swap parts to get extra actions via specialist battle cards, and I Still Function/Peace Through Tyranny to get another turn. Then playing Plasma cannons to ping out 2 damage. This can go on forever without your opponent getting a turn until they are dead. A group of us playtested it a bit yesterday, and the deck can pull the combo off often enough (In our games we had the combo coming off roughly 60% of the time). I wanted to let anyone on here who might not be on the discord or facebook group know, so you too can annoy your friends and make enemies of strangers!

    For real though, my hopes from this finding are 1 of 2 erratas:
    1. "swapping parts" is ruled to not be equal to "putting parts" every where else in the game WotC says "read the cards and follow the text" but in a rules round up they contradicted this philosophy, and this ruling has enabled the consistency of this combo.

    2. You cannot have a turn with all characters tapped. If all of your non-KO characters are tapped already, your opponent should get a turn even if you have given yourself another turn via I Still Function. This already happens to an extent with Dreadwing in that combining him does not give you an extra turn if dreadwind and blackwing are tapped. I know the technical reasons are a bit different, but requiring you to have an untapped character to draw/play battle cards will also stop the combo from being achievable, as you won't be bale to ISF on your extra turn if your other two characters are tapped.

    I just wanted to get peoples thoughts on this. I like combo decks, and I don't mind strong decks in the meta, but a strategy that is aimed at preventing someone from playing the game seems unfun to me.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Wreckgar

    Wreckgar Anthony Stark Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Posts:
    8,530
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +243
    Do you have the decklist handy?

    Also, which wave Prowl and Swoop?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. That Guy

    That Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Posts:
    3,024
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +1,251
    Ebay:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    To be clear, my problem with the deck isn't really that it wins. My issue is that playing the deck prevents your opponent from playing the game at all if the combo goes off.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. GasBlaster

    GasBlaster Shatter Glass Such&Such

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Posts:
    523
    Trophy Points:
    117
    Likes:
    +8
    anything with torox would make this deck not consistent.
     
  5. CybertronianFan

    CybertronianFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Posts:
    8,065
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +1,778
    Torox will not stop this deck, just slow it down. The monster here is Swap Parts. Have to kill 2 of the Specialists to officially cut off this deck's head. That being said, the deck isn't consistent and can stall out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. That Guy

    That Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Posts:
    3,024
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +1,251
    Ebay:
    Agreed, again, my issue isn't with a combo existing, my issue is mechanics in the game allowing a player to prevent their opponent from playing the game at all for an extended amount of time existing.
     
  7. jjh

    jjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2016
    Posts:
    351
    Trophy Points:
    142
    Likes:
    +374
    TCG Players are smart. So are the Designers.

    Move. Counter move.

    Time for WotC to make a move on this deck.
     
  8. agp

    agp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Posts:
    1,392
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +461
    While I respect the ingenuity with making this deck I was bummed that it's possible. I don't know if a rules change or banning is better. I've felt for a while ISF wasn't great card. There's no tatics to it, it's a late game get out of jail free card. We battle all game, down to one character a side and one player top decks ISF for an extra 7-10 pt attack with no draw backs. Reckless charge and one shall stand have a damage cost associated. ISF only real downside is no icons.
     
  9. Wreckgar

    Wreckgar Anthony Stark Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Posts:
    8,530
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +243
    Interesting. I would like to see a video of this being somehow pulled off.
     
  10. CybertronianFan

    CybertronianFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Posts:
    8,065
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +1,778
    Banning and Errattas of cards, especially this early in the game's life is a terrible idea. Look at the messes formed in Magic the Gathering due to that nonsense. I don't want to see a repeat of that.

    I'd rather them implement a rule stating no more than 2 consecutive turns in a row can be taken at a time regardless of cards played.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Vangelus

    Vangelus Long Live the New Flesh Moderator Content Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2002
    Posts:
    15,438
    News Credits:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +411
    Ebay:
    A ruling on limiting consecutive additional turns seems like the most reasonable non-damning thing to me & is in line with other mechanics in place that (among other things) seem like they exist to prevent looping PTT, like played actions not entering scrap until the end of turn, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Aaron

    Aaron Master of Crystalocution Moderator Content Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    21,802
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    397
    Likes:
    +63
    Twitter:
    I could see a clarification on turns starting with all your characters tapped with your opponent having untapped.
     
  13. Big Dawg

    Big Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Posts:
    1,672
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    162
    Likes:
    +53
    The key though is its lack of consistency. If this is brought against other tourney decks does it stand a chance? If so, how much? I think the 60%#, if accurate, would be a problem. I don’t think it needs to be errata’d at this point. It’s part of the strategy. I played mtg for years and you have to be aware of the deck type you are facing. Combo decks tend to play on a vacuum so if you are playing any kind of focus (like primes) you are pretty much free to race the clock. In terms of kitchen table games, just house rule it
     
  14. Raithnor

    Raithnor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Posts:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    87
    Likes:
    +10
    I mean the whole advantage to untapping and tapping a card more than once a turn is getting an extra attack on your opponent.

    Take Thrust: He could be tapped for a combat boost on another card, untapped (somehow), and then tapped again to attack.

    Where it would get ridiculous if is that untap cycle happens more than once in a "turn".

    You'd need a rule that would say "Characters card can only attack once per Round (Cycle?) unless their character card says otherwise. This would still allow "Speedy" characters like Blurr to do their thing while not turning everyone else into Blurr.

    That's something Wizards is going to have to clarify in the future if they make a secret action card that on reveal "Untap one character"
     
  15. CybertronianFan

    CybertronianFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Posts:
    8,065
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +1,778

    Forgive me, but I fail to see the relevance of adding this rule.

    Taking advantage of actions or upgrades that untap a character takes place prior the attack phase, so no matter what they'd still get only 1 attack / turn. Even if played multiple times during a turn, the process still happens before the attack phase which still ends up with said character getting just that one attack / turn. Adding that rule is kind of moot at the moment.


    This deck capitalizes on two things - 1) Its outrageous card draw power. This is where Swap Parts is the MVP here. And 2) maximizing the use of PTT which can potential permit a near limitless consecutive turns in several rows. The consecutive turn loop is the condemning part of the deck. If this deck becomes a problem, the way to shut it down is to limit the number of consecutive turns one can take in a row. Deck problem solved and no Ban or Errata made.
     
  16. Big Dawg

    Big Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Posts:
    1,672
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    162
    Likes:
    +53
    But by limiting the amount of consecutive turns you are effectively errata-ing the whole game. It would be like (another mtg reference) when they changed to not taking mana burn. It appeared like a game breaking change, wasn’t really and was generally adopted without issue. It did however completely invalidate a few cards that were released prior to the change. I am still one for not being so quick to jump at a rule change. And honestly, with no current sanctioned tournaments from wizards there is no point in them making an official ruling. Typically that occurs when a card warps the meta game to a point wheee you either have to play this deck or play the deck that is designed to beat this deck
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  17. CybertronianFan

    CybertronianFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Posts:
    8,065
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +1,778
    By calling this an errata, you're implying an old rule regarding consecutive turns already exists and it is being changed. There are no rules concerning the taking of multiple consecutive turns in a row. It is not an errata.

    This here *is* an actual change from an old rule. That, by very definition, is an errata.


    Aye, the deck isn't so much a problem as of yet, and it isn't 100% effective. Just when it does, it does it too well. If it does get optimized to the point that it dominates the soon to be OP scene, adding a new rule to limit consecutive number of turns in a row is a much better solution than actually banning or issuing an errata to any card (especially this early in the game's life). I vehemently do not want to see this tcg fall down the same path as MtG did with all their bans and erratas. MtG may be WotC's flagship, but Primus knows it is riddled with tons of holes due to the excessive banning/erratas.
     
  18. Big Dawg

    Big Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Posts:
    1,672
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    162
    Likes:
    +53
    You’re just arguing semantics though. The rule is “play as the cards written” so by adding a rule to specifically address “consecutive turns” you are changing that. Think of it from a design perspective- as a new player and you read a rule that says “players can’t take more than 1 additional turn at a time from cards or effects” would raise a lot of questions.

    Again, doesn’t matter until this actually shows to be an actual problem as opposed to just part of the meta. Think Ice climbers in smash
     
  19. CybertronianFan

    CybertronianFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Posts:
    8,065
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +1,778
    If there was already a rule regarding multiple consecutive turns in a row, you'd have a point. Alas, there isn't one. Where's the semantics?

    Adding that rule doesn't change PTT as you still get an extra turn. What it does is prohibit the abuse of the disallowing the opponent to play while still preserving the card's nature. Mind you, what I propose isn't the end-all-be-all solution IF this deck does become problematic (that's left to the design team), but it is a far better solution than banning and errata'ing cards outright.
     
  20. JJJ

    JJJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Posts:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Likes:
    +134
    My preferred solution to this sort of thing (derived from playing lots of MtG, and striving for this sort of thing myself):

    "Mmm. Very clever. Wish I'd thought of that. Now put it away and use a deck that isn't degenerate and which gives both of us a fun game, or piss off."

    It's amazing how well this works, especially when you do it at, for example, a card shop. Many (perhaps even most) people don't even think "nope, I'm not bothering with your crap" is an option until they see it done, and then they jump at it. And the person who plays the un-fun deck now can't get a game in.

    Tournaments... I don't care about tournaments, but if I did then I would think that the biggest, cleverest bastard with the most degenerate deck ought to win.