I've never made a coin flip deck before, thought I'd look into it.
As far as I can tell, for a dedicated coin-flip deck, there's no genuine way to actually win without Chance Encounter.
I mean, we have Mana Clash, Goblin Bomb and a few others to do a large amount of damage quickly, but there's not many choices I can see to make the deck scary - it looks durdly for a lot of turns - and many of the cards choose a single opponent instead of all of them.
Overall I have to admit, I don't know if this is all worth the investment - some of these cards used to be very cheap, now they're getting a bit pricey, for what looks like a novelty deck.
Or have I misread this?
Is this deck actually more competitive than it looks?
How would you build it? Which cards turned out to be worth their weight in MP, and which were awful?
And would you splash for blue or include ramp instead?
Don't bother wasting money on a meme deck. It's not good and it's not fun to play against given the instant-win nature of Chance Encounter. It literally forces your adversaries to team up against you because anything else would be insanity. As such they can't sit back and let you have your fun which makes for a miserable experience for everyone.
If you do build it then you need Impulsive Maneuvers for defense and significantly more protection/mass removal.
The best card in the deck (not close) is Fiery Gambit which is a card that I've legitimately in multiplayer before. It has a 1/8 probability of winning the game and for someone like me who frequently plays in 8 player FFAs I was willing to live with those odds. The card is BUSTED when it works.
Don't bother? Yeah I thought that would be the consensus - my wife likes the idea, asked me to build it, but I can't see a reason to give it much more thought
Too often on this board we treat multiplayer as a static format. Prid discounts this type of deck because he plays mostly large player ffas and says everyone will team up against you. Personally I doubt this because that would suggest you appear to be the most dangerous, and with 7 other players I have a hard time seeing how that would be the case until its too late. That isn't my format so i fully admit I could be wrong. My playgroup rarely does pure large ffas. We mostly do 2v2, pentagram, 3v3, 2v2v2 and emperor. My friend has a flip deck. I have played on its team and against it many times. The deck is fun both to team with and play against.
Its worth noting that Prid3 would never field this type of deck. The cards aren't inherently unfair. As for building a flip deck because you like the flavor, Prid says that ""Flavour" is an arbitrary cop-out that only exists to serve as a non-quantifiable variable in order to serve your personal whims and desires. Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways. It's a defense mechanism employed to save-face should your creations fail to live up to (what people perceive to be) reasonable expectations. If the deck sucks, no biggie, you had to adhere to flavour so it wasn't your fault"
In other words, you would only build a flip deck if you were insecure about losing. So its hardly surprising that prid would be against building it, since flavor is not something worth considering.
Here is my friend's deck if you are curious as to what he runs.
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
Too often on this board we treat multiplayer as a static format.
I assume we agree it's all relative.
People netdeck. If you expect your opponents to netdeck, even a little, then you may come up against some of the decklists and card choices you see here.
That said, I don't always aim to win, and I do like flavour - I like a deck with humour.
Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways.
...
In other words, you would only build a flip deck if you were insecure about losing. So its hardly surprising that prid would be against building it, since flavor is not something worth considering.
I don't think flavour, losing or an insecurity (of losing) is where we're at - every deck has a price. The first few lists here have few card choices I could use in other decks, if any, and in testing/goldfishing, it feels like combo. My missus likes the idea, so she can buy them if she wants to.
Prid discounts this type of deck because he plays mostly large player ffas and says everyone will team up against you. Personally I doubt this because that would suggest you appear to be the most dangerous, and with 7 other players I have a hard time seeing how that would be the case until its too late.
Just we're clear your argument is that the vast majority of the MTG population is unable to recognize the threat of Chance Encounter until it wins the game? This could obvious be true for you and the people in your meta. I won't profess to have intimate knowledge on your collective ability to read and/or employ reading comprehension. My argument is that rational human beings with reasonable reading levels can critically assess the threat presented by a card like Chance Encounter. That obviously won't hold true for 100% of players in 100% of metas but I'm working under the assumption that slave's opposition will.
The deck is fun both to team with and play against.
The deck is fun to play with and against in the ~60% of games where is fails to draw Chance Encounter in a reasonable timeframe and/or when it gets removed?
People enjoy playing against "you win the game" cards in general? When people lose to them they express their happiness towards the conclusion?
Do you want to know why I usually hate on these kinds of decks? Not this one in particular but decks such as these? It's because decks that need to assemble A + B + C to generate marginal advantage or create lackluster synergies are usually extremely unfun to play. 60% of the time the deck loses to itself and the remaining 40% you have the privilege of treading water until you lose. I've been playing with newer/inexperienced players for decades and rest assured that decks with low land counts, weak combos that it can't reliably assemble and niche threats/answers tend to consistently lose games and be consistently unfun to play. Not because they lose, because they rarely do anything that feels powerful, unique, different, etc. They almost always doing nothing at all, flounder and fail. That's why I like to promote consistent decks that aren't reliant on combos unless they literally win games of Magic.
As for building a flip deck because you like the flavor, Prid says that ""Flavour" is an arbitrary cop-out that only exists to serve as a non-quantifiable variable in order to serve your personal whims and desires. Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways. It's a defense mechanism employed to save-face should your creations fail to live up to (what people perceive to be) reasonable expectations. If the deck sucks, no biggie, you had to adhere to flavour so it wasn't your fault."
Except flavour has nothing to do with it. Playing cards that flip coins make strategic sense when your deck has both Krark's Thumb and Chance Encounter. They're the objectively best cards for the job because they boast synergies that literally win games of Magic against any number of adversaries. He's not doing it because it's fun; he's doing it to maximize his overall win %.
I clearly explained why I think that this deck is bad. Since my stance hasn't changed I'll simply repeat it verbatim:
"It's not good and it's not fun to play against given the instant-win nature of Chance Encounter. It literally forces your adversaries to team up against you because anything else would be insanity. As such they can't sit back and let you have your fun which makes for a miserable experience for everyone."
Prid discounts this type of deck because he plays mostly large player ffas and says everyone will team up against you. Personally I doubt this because that would suggest you appear to be the most dangerous, and with 7 other players I have a hard time seeing how that would be the case until its too late.
Just we're clear your argument is that the vast majority of the MTG population is unable to recognize the threat of Chance Encounter until it wins the game? This could obvious be true for you and the people in your meta. I won't profess to have intimate knowledge on your collective ability to read and/or employ reading comprehension. My argument is that rational human beings with reasonable reading levels can critically assess the threat presented by a card like Chance Encounter. That obviously won't hold true for 100% of players in 100% of metas but I'm working under the assumption that slave's opposition will.
I said "Until its too late," not that people wouldn't know its a win condition. You have 8 players in the game in this example. Everyone is trying to win so everyone is building toward that. Your honestly going to tell me that you think this deck would seem like the biggest threat? One person is clearly running green ramp, another is running kiki jiki, 3 are running tribal decks like sliver, 2 are running infinite combo decks. This is going to be the biggest threat right away? Do your games just involve nobody playing any cards for the first 10 turns? People need to conserve their resources. At first Chance encounter is a joke. 10 counters needed is a lot. Its a threat but its something to worry about later. Then there are any number of combos to get crazy numbers of counters on it quickly. My friend's deck does run things to protect it like Planar Chaos and when you don't need it to search muddle the mixture. Then everything causing flips plus stitch in time plus fossil find suddenly you are taking 3 or 4 turns in a row and what seemed like a joke just won the game.
I don't think my friend's deck is optimal. Improvements can definitely be made but I have seen it go from joke to deadly incredibly quickly.
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
Everyone is trying to win so everyone is building toward that. People need to conserve their resources.
Because doing nothing is a winning line when you have 7 opponents who are expending theirs? This logic has never made any sense to me. If you're not using all of your mana on all of your turns then you're not building your decks properly. If casting spells means that you find yourself in topdeck mode on a routine basis, again, you're not building your decks properly. Play more ramp. Play more mass card draw. Play more mass removal that you don't have to sandbag. The only reason to put cards like Nature's Claim in your deck is if you're worried about degenerate combos. That's it.
Why? Doesn't the deck threaten to win with a single untap step using cards like Stitch in Time and Fiery Gambit? Not "100% probability of winning" but significantly higher than 0%.
Improvements can definitely be made but I have seen it go from joke to deadly incredibly quickly.
Assuming turn 2 Thumb, turn 3 Planar Chaos, 4 Chance Encounter you can threaten to win on the following turn. I don't know how you can consider that a "joke" card and/or one that you don't need to worry about until later on.
Why? Doesn't the deck threaten to win with a single untap step using cards like Stitch in Time and Fiery Gambit? Not "100% probability of winning" but significantly higher than 0%.
Improvements can definitely be made but I have seen it go from joke to deadly incredibly quickly.
Assuming turn 2 Thumb turn 3-4 Chance Encounter you can threaten to win on the following turn. I don't know how you can consider that a "joke" card and/or one that you don't need to worry about until later on.
So the deck is bad because its too good at winning and everyone will team up against you to stop you from winning even though all their decks are also capable of suddenly winning?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
So the deck is bad because its too good at winning and everyone will team up against you to stop you from winning even though all their decks are also capable of suddenly winning?
The deck is bad because it's inconsistent, slow and weak relative to other combo decks. Red has no natural tutors outside of Gamble (which is neither consistent nor budget-friendly) which means that you typically need the deck to be base-Blue. That being said in order to cast turn 1 Ponder, turn 2 Thumb, turn 3 Anger of the Gods/Planar Chaos/Trade Secrets, turn 4 Chance Encounter, turn 5 win you need a ton of untapped Blue/Red sources which usually means Fetches and Shocks. Otherwise your deck goldfishes a full turn slower (at least) which is problematic when you're lacking cards that protect you and or significantly thwart others. Then you have to take into account all of the games where you flip 3 tails in a row (it happens) and lose to pure RNG. When you cast Waste Not into Windfall you win and there's no two ways about it. You don't need to flip coins or anything. Chance Encounter decks literally lose to pure RNG on a routine basis. As with any other combo removal/permission/disruption is tough to beat and don't forget about the fact that you still have to untap to win even once you have 10 counters. That doesn't matter if you're lucky enough to resolve all of your Stitch in Times but there's no guarantee of that. In that sense this deck is not only and loses to pure RNG but it even forces you to jump through another hoop. Then we have to think about all of the games where you don't nut draw turn 2 Thumb, turn 4 Encounter and draw a bunch of fairly terrible spells and effects. Contrast that to other combos where you can simply run them out once you've assembled them in order to win on the spot. Lastly, unlike most other combo decks CE forces you to fill your deck with enablers that have very little standalone value and/or are extremely RNG dependent. As such it's difficult to find room for your cantrips, mass card draw, tutors, permission, etc. because in addition to your combo cards you also have to make room for the Stiches, Gambits, etc. that enable you to convert your combo into a game win.
EDIT: Let me put this another way. Your adversaries aren't psychics. They don't get to see your hand nor predict your RNG. When you run out Thumb into Chance Encounter they have to assume the worst-case scenario of "we lose if he untaps." Period. After all, it's a perfectly conceivable outcome given the existence of "free" flip spells such as Stitch in Time and Fiery Gambit. What you actually have in your hand is irrelevant. How "lucky" or "unlucky" that you are is irrelevant. The only variable worth considering is what could happen as a result of ignoring you which is obviously losing the game. This is why I hate this deck. It sucks, but when the stars align it has an OTK combo kill that defeats any number of adversaries and thus has to be feared. Anything else would be insanity assuming that people are trying to win. As such you're ostensibly forcing people to team up on a relatively weak deck simply because it will nut draw into a non-interactive OTK some % of the time. As someone who tries to minimize variance I despised winning and losing games on the backs of literal coin flips. It's not fun to cast Stitch in Time and flip tails twice in a row and lose. That's not 1/50 RNG; that's 1/4 and it's tacked on to the majority of your spells. I hated playing it, I hated playing against it and it basically never won once people realized what untapping with Chance Encounter entailed. It's a crappy deck that's incredibly unfun to play because your skill and decision-making are irrelevant when your spells fizzle themselves on a routine basis.
As far as I can tell, for a dedicated coin-flip deck, there's no genuine way to actually win without Chance Encounter.
I mean, we have Mana Clash, Goblin Bomb and a few others to do a large amount of damage quickly, but there's not many choices I can see to make the deck scary - it looks durdly for a lot of turns - and many of the cards choose a single opponent instead of all of them.
4x Chance Encounter
4x Goblin Bomb
4x Planar Chaos
4x Karplusan Minotaur
4x Fiery Gambit
4x Krark's Thumb
4x Sorcerer's Strongbox
2x Risky Move
4x Game of Chaos
That's 58 cards. Some of these numbers may drop.
The rest might be removal like Pupput's Verdict or Blasphemous Act, or creatures like Scoria Wurm, Wild Wurm, Creepy Doll, Goblin Archaeologist, Goblin Assassin, Goblin Bangchuckers.
Blue offers Squee's Revenge (which looks terrible) and Stitch in Time (which looks very good).
Overall I have to admit, I don't know if this is all worth the investment - some of these cards used to be very cheap, now they're getting a bit pricey, for what looks like a novelty deck.
Or have I misread this?
Is this deck actually more competitive than it looks?
How would you build it? Which cards turned out to be worth their weight in MP, and which were awful?
And would you splash for blue or include ramp instead?
Cheers
If you do build it then you need Impulsive Maneuvers for defense and significantly more protection/mass removal.
The best card in the deck (not close) is Fiery Gambit which is a card that I've legitimately in multiplayer before. It has a 1/8 probability of winning the game and for someone like me who frequently plays in 8 player FFAs I was willing to live with those odds. The card is BUSTED when it works.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Its worth noting that Prid3 would never field this type of deck. The cards aren't inherently unfair. As for building a flip deck because you like the flavor, Prid says that ""Flavour" is an arbitrary cop-out that only exists to serve as a non-quantifiable variable in order to serve your personal whims and desires. Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways. It's a defense mechanism employed to save-face should your creations fail to live up to (what people perceive to be) reasonable expectations. If the deck sucks, no biggie, you had to adhere to flavour so it wasn't your fault"
In other words, you would only build a flip deck if you were insecure about losing. So its hardly surprising that prid would be against building it, since flavor is not something worth considering.
Here is my friend's deck if you are curious as to what he runs.
4 Goblin Kaboomist
3 Volatile Rig
Instants/Sorceries
3 Puppet's Verdict
4 stitch in time
3 Fossil Find
4 muddle the mixture
3 stifle
3 Planar Chaos
4 krark's thumb
2 Chance encounter
4 goblin bomb
He hasn't updated it in a while. So i'm sure improvements can be made.
I assume we agree it's all relative.
People netdeck. If you expect your opponents to netdeck, even a little, then you may come up against some of the decklists and card choices you see here.
That said, I don't always aim to win, and I do like flavour - I like a deck with humour.
I don't think flavour, losing or an insecurity (of losing) is where we're at - every deck has a price. The first few lists here have few card choices I could use in other decks, if any, and in testing/goldfishing, it feels like combo. My missus likes the idea, so she can buy them if she wants to.
Cheers for the list.:)
Just we're clear your argument is that the vast majority of the MTG population is unable to recognize the threat of Chance Encounter until it wins the game? This could obvious be true for you and the people in your meta. I won't profess to have intimate knowledge on your collective ability to read and/or employ reading comprehension. My argument is that rational human beings with reasonable reading levels can critically assess the threat presented by a card like Chance Encounter. That obviously won't hold true for 100% of players in 100% of metas but I'm working under the assumption that slave's opposition will.
The deck is fun to play with and against in the ~60% of games where is fails to draw Chance Encounter in a reasonable timeframe and/or when it gets removed?
People enjoy playing against "you win the game" cards in general? When people lose to them they express their happiness towards the conclusion?
Do you want to know why I usually hate on these kinds of decks? Not this one in particular but decks such as these? It's because decks that need to assemble A + B + C to generate marginal advantage or create lackluster synergies are usually extremely unfun to play. 60% of the time the deck loses to itself and the remaining 40% you have the privilege of treading water until you lose. I've been playing with newer/inexperienced players for decades and rest assured that decks with low land counts, weak combos that it can't reliably assemble and niche threats/answers tend to consistently lose games and be consistently unfun to play. Not because they lose, because they rarely do anything that feels powerful, unique, different, etc. They almost always doing nothing at all, flounder and fail. That's why I like to promote consistent decks that aren't reliant on combos unless they literally win games of Magic.
I used to own the Izzet version of this deck. Krark's Thumb + Impulsive Maneuvers is basically Moat so you just sit back and win via Chance Encounter.
Except flavour has nothing to do with it. Playing cards that flip coins make strategic sense when your deck has both Krark's Thumb and Chance Encounter. They're the objectively best cards for the job because they boast synergies that literally win games of Magic against any number of adversaries. He's not doing it because it's fun; he's doing it to maximize his overall win %.
I clearly explained why I think that this deck is bad. Since my stance hasn't changed I'll simply repeat it verbatim:
"It's not good and it's not fun to play against given the instant-win nature of Chance Encounter. It literally forces your adversaries to team up against you because anything else would be insanity. As such they can't sit back and let you have your fun which makes for a miserable experience for everyone."
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
I said "Until its too late," not that people wouldn't know its a win condition. You have 8 players in the game in this example. Everyone is trying to win so everyone is building toward that. Your honestly going to tell me that you think this deck would seem like the biggest threat? One person is clearly running green ramp, another is running kiki jiki, 3 are running tribal decks like sliver, 2 are running infinite combo decks. This is going to be the biggest threat right away? Do your games just involve nobody playing any cards for the first 10 turns? People need to conserve their resources. At first Chance encounter is a joke. 10 counters needed is a lot. Its a threat but its something to worry about later. Then there are any number of combos to get crazy numbers of counters on it quickly. My friend's deck does run things to protect it like Planar Chaos and when you don't need it to search muddle the mixture. Then everything causing flips plus stitch in time plus fossil find suddenly you are taking 3 or 4 turns in a row and what seemed like a joke just won the game.
I don't think my friend's deck is optimal. Improvements can definitely be made but I have seen it go from joke to deadly incredibly quickly.
Because doing nothing is a winning line when you have 7 opponents who are expending theirs? This logic has never made any sense to me. If you're not using all of your mana on all of your turns then you're not building your decks properly. If casting spells means that you find yourself in topdeck mode on a routine basis, again, you're not building your decks properly. Play more ramp. Play more mass card draw. Play more mass removal that you don't have to sandbag. The only reason to put cards like Nature's Claim in your deck is if you're worried about degenerate combos. That's it.
Why? Doesn't the deck threaten to win with a single untap step using cards like Stitch in Time and Fiery Gambit? Not "100% probability of winning" but significantly higher than 0%.
Assuming turn 2 Thumb, turn 3 Planar Chaos, 4 Chance Encounter you can threaten to win on the following turn. I don't know how you can consider that a "joke" card and/or one that you don't need to worry about until later on.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
So the deck is bad because its too good at winning and everyone will team up against you to stop you from winning even though all their decks are also capable of suddenly winning?
The deck is bad because it's inconsistent, slow and weak relative to other combo decks. Red has no natural tutors outside of Gamble (which is neither consistent nor budget-friendly) which means that you typically need the deck to be base-Blue. That being said in order to cast turn 1 Ponder, turn 2 Thumb, turn 3 Anger of the Gods/Planar Chaos/Trade Secrets, turn 4 Chance Encounter, turn 5 win you need a ton of untapped Blue/Red sources which usually means Fetches and Shocks. Otherwise your deck goldfishes a full turn slower (at least) which is problematic when you're lacking cards that protect you and or significantly thwart others. Then you have to take into account all of the games where you flip 3 tails in a row (it happens) and lose to pure RNG. When you cast Waste Not into Windfall you win and there's no two ways about it. You don't need to flip coins or anything. Chance Encounter decks literally lose to pure RNG on a routine basis. As with any other combo removal/permission/disruption is tough to beat and don't forget about the fact that you still have to untap to win even once you have 10 counters. That doesn't matter if you're lucky enough to resolve all of your Stitch in Times but there's no guarantee of that. In that sense this deck is not only and loses to pure RNG but it even forces you to jump through another hoop. Then we have to think about all of the games where you don't nut draw turn 2 Thumb, turn 4 Encounter and draw a bunch of fairly terrible spells and effects. Contrast that to other combos where you can simply run them out once you've assembled them in order to win on the spot. Lastly, unlike most other combo decks CE forces you to fill your deck with enablers that have very little standalone value and/or are extremely RNG dependent. As such it's difficult to find room for your cantrips, mass card draw, tutors, permission, etc. because in addition to your combo cards you also have to make room for the Stiches, Gambits, etc. that enable you to convert your combo into a game win.
EDIT: Let me put this another way. Your adversaries aren't psychics. They don't get to see your hand nor predict your RNG. When you run out Thumb into Chance Encounter they have to assume the worst-case scenario of "we lose if he untaps." Period. After all, it's a perfectly conceivable outcome given the existence of "free" flip spells such as Stitch in Time and Fiery Gambit. What you actually have in your hand is irrelevant. How "lucky" or "unlucky" that you are is irrelevant. The only variable worth considering is what could happen as a result of ignoring you which is obviously losing the game. This is why I hate this deck. It sucks, but when the stars align it has an OTK combo kill that defeats any number of adversaries and thus has to be feared. Anything else would be insanity assuming that people are trying to win. As such you're ostensibly forcing people to team up on a relatively weak deck simply because it will nut draw into a non-interactive OTK some % of the time. As someone who tries to minimize variance I despised winning and losing games on the backs of literal coin flips. It's not fun to cast Stitch in Time and flip tails twice in a row and lose. That's not 1/50 RNG; that's 1/4 and it's tacked on to the majority of your spells. I hated playing it, I hated playing against it and it basically never won once people realized what untapping with Chance Encounter entailed. It's a crappy deck that's incredibly unfun to play because your skill and decision-making are irrelevant when your spells fizzle themselves on a routine basis.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold