With games that are based on combinations of things and continues to expand, you get a combinatoric explosion - it really isn't anywhere near reasonable to test every combination in that kind of situation. We just don't have that kind of development time, and it wouldn't be worth it even if we did.

Infinite combos are not really that bad, all things considered. In Magic, for example, there are lots of infinite combos that require three or more cards on the field. Because they require multiple cards, answers like removal, counter-magic, or just winning before the infinite combo is assembled are all absolutely valid options for any opponent. They provide a fun way for players to express how they wish to play ("assembling the combo" is a fun in-game goal to try to achieve).

What's far more important is that everything is properly costed. Infinite combos that win the game aren't inherently bad, but infinite combos that are easy to initiate and hard to find counter play for are troublesome. It isn't the infinite combo itself that is troublesome, it's how easy the combo is to assemble. By making the combo more difficult to assemble - usually by tweaking costs or increasing vulnerability to counter play - we can preserve the fun of assembling and winning with the infinite combo while still allowing for a reasonable competitive metagame. We can do this by making certain combo pieces more expensive to cast (buying time for the opponent to build their own resources and possibly win) or by making them more vulnerable to removal or counterplay, e.g. adding "hate" pieces that can counter the combo if it happens, or removal that can stop the combo in its tracks.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

• Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter
• Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on BlueSky
• Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr
• Frequent Questions: The FAQ