Disclaimer: This post is to gather opinions, I have my owns that I will share at the start of the post but maybe your insights would make me think different or not.
There is a player that complaints about the possibility of someone winning with a combo, I don't mean a turn 3 or 5 combo, I mean a Turn 14-16 combo where for instance a player casting Sanguine bond and Exquisite blood plus gaining one life ends the game in a infinite damage or a turn 8-10 Felidar sovereign.
He argues that he does not like that you can win 'effortless' or 'out of nowhere' and I don't know how to make him understand my point of view which is the following.
1. He likes to play heavy creature bases decks, sometimes with counters, sometimes tribal, sometimes graveyard, etc. I just don't. I like other kinds of decks (mostly control decks)
2. It is not true that if a win with a turn 12-15 combo I won 'out of nowhere' or effortless because it is very hard for a control deck to survive long enough in a 4 man table where normally you will be the first in being attacked because of many reasons including that is easy.
From my perspective this is how most games in our group are played (Imagine I start because I won the roll)
I start developing slowly my board turn a a turn, just with lands and mana rocks, after turn 3-4 I can start developing my actual game plan so I can begin casting some artifacts or enchants that will drive me through it.
From turn 3 normally I eat every single attacks of the playgroup (creatures) except if he attack and develop my board or I am just in the weakest spot and I am just being ignored because they won't considered me a threat.
From turn 4 I may starting board-wiping (if I am the focus of the other attacks) or playing some stax things like Propaganda, Ghostly prison or even Delaying shield.
Maybe I can convince someone to focus on other player and I can starting spending some mana in my turn developing my game while holds answers in case of need
The last game I won, that was a very hard one, I casted 6 boardwipes (game ended in turn 16-18 I think), while I didn't won with an actual combo (I won because I had 40 cards in my hand, sanguine bond and venser's journal) I think I may actually could won by dropping a felidar or exquisite blood and It would be the same, I worked for the win, I stand against 3 opponents that gave me no truce, it is so bad to win with an infinite combo in turn 16? why did he sees it as 'unfun' or 'unfair'.
a. What do you think about it overall?
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
I always dislike losing to combo, and find myself lucky enough to generally avoid it.
I do not see it as unfair, but I do see it as unfun.
It is work to stay alive in a 4+ person game, so you 'earned it'.
It depends on when/how the Bond came into play in the last scenario. Did you flash it in, and kill someone during your upkeep? If not, then people need to answer that stuff, or lose.
Generally if something went to turn 16, its cool for someone to win. But I do understand the person who wants to do stuff every turn towords killing people, not just treading water until they have a combo, even if thats past turn 10.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
In fact, I like the idea of having at least one combo in just about every EDH deck, most of all in case the battlefield gets bogged down, or the game has just gone round and round for far too long, etc., etc.
Also, I believe that the line between combo and overwhelming synergy might as well be nonexistent, in most cases. Winning convincingly sans combo is just winning with a slo-mo combo.
I am like the creature player in your OP in one way. I like to beat face with creatures, but I also play a lot of quasi-combo synergy decks, more than most of my friends. I don’t think it’s unfair to win in turn 10-18, but that would be really tough in my group. Some of us pack some decent disruption and we ramp into big critters.
For myself, if I know you’re going to win that way, where you have a definite “my death” sitting in your deck, then I am going to make you earn it or else take you out. To do otherwise is not playing sound Magic. I don’t personally play combo and don’t like it, but it is part of the game. That reaction being common is why people build turn 4 combo decks.
Also, I believe that the line between combo and overwhelming synergy might as well be nonexistent, in most cases. Winning convincingly sans combo is just winning with a slo-mo combo.
This may deserve its own thread, overwhelming synergy (Like Narset, wich technicaly is not a combo sometimes is non-interactive)
You pose some interesting questions. I play in three regular metas, and they range from incredibly casual (bear tribal being one deck represented ) to pretty darned cutthroat (the black tutor based decks in question, etc. ), but I will answer the questions as they were posed.
a. What do you think about it overall?
It really depends. If you are playing a two card one trick pony combo, then I am going to pull out my stax deck and we'll see who has more fun. If you are playing something janky? Well, I do like hilarious games so that's fine. I myself have a mono green infinite turns deck that takes something like 18 cards to go off. Combos like that when they happen is fine, certainly I can't complain. That is working for it!
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
Not at all. Everyone has had time to impact the game, so it is to be expected that someone has to win somehow. Certainly the combo described in the original post had 40+ cards, venser's journal, and sanguine bond? That is pretty janky and there are any number of easy ways to stop it (like blowing up the journal, or stopping you from drawing the cards, etc. ). However, all players have things they hate losing to (in my case, permanent theft, mindslaver, and infect wins). If I see a case of you trying for any of those strategies in my games, rather than try to win myself, I am going to take great and malicious delight in blowing up every single permanent you have and every single deck I have can manage it one way or another. The last time someone tried a simple bribery on me, I was playing a mono green deck with Yeva as my general. One turn cycle later, thanks to a seedborne muse, several other opponents, acidic slime, and temur sabertooth, that player was non-creature permanent free. I searched up an ulvenwald tracker and vigor on my turn and then he no longer had creatures either. Of course, there are those who hate my response, so it goes both ways.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
They do work their way to victory, but they tend to do it in a "not the face" manner until they can finally take control of the game. The reality of such games is that the aggro players with good threat assessment tend to punch that face hard. It's the way it works.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
Hardly. At that point, people need to be trying to win somehow. As stated earlier, if they didn't have the response, that was a fair victory.
Games need to end eventually, and combo is every bit as legitimate a way to a game as any other means. I've never really understood some people's obsessions with long games. Getting to Turn 16+ or spending much more than an hour per game sounds miserable to me. That's especially true in a multiplayer format where one player might be knocked out early and then have to spend the rest of their precious gaming time staring at a clogged board with no real hope of ending.
Don't get me wrong, I love playing control decks too, but I always make sure my control decks have some sort of plan for actually finishing the game out, whether that's combo or voltron or total lockdown or whatever.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
a. What do you think about it overall?
Combo is as combo does. It's as much a part of the game as the combat phase.
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
Good god no. If the game's dragged on that long, someone needs to put it out of its misery so we can move on to another one.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
I don't understand this concept. What is "work their way to victory"? Having enough patience to wait through stalled board states until someone scoops and goes to watch paint dry instead? Until someone decks themselves in a 100-card format? I'd understand the attitude if we were talking about fast combo, since that game is usually won in the deck building phase, but not in the long slog fests you're describing.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
ROFL no. If a player in the game hasn't started to put some sort of game-winning plan into motion by T10, regardless of whether it gets stopped or not, I'm going to think they got mana flooded or are accidentally playing poker instead.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
They do work their way to victory, but they tend to do it in a "not the face" manner until they can finally take control of the game. The reality of such games is that the aggro players with good threat assessment tend to punch that face hard. It's the way it works.
.
The thing is, sometimes, people who doesn's like combos talk about them as if the games were 'draw, go, draw go, combo', and normally is not (remember I am talking about T10+ combos no T3-5 ones), If I have the T10+ combo means I was able to survive the table long enough and developed the board as needed.
Imagine this scenario, I am playing a life gaining deck, I have vedalken orrery in the table, I have 50 life, I flash EOT test of endurance and imagine I have a counterspell backup.
To be in that postion I need
1. Have 50+ life, wich means avoiding damage and gaining life gainst 3 oponents, and not loosing life or paying life for stuff.
2. Vedalken orrery to resolve and survive
3. 6 Mana AEOT (this is the easy part)
4. A counterspell in my hand
In a 'normal' game this scenario is high unlikely to happen before turn 10+ and what I am saying is that if I was able to gather those resources I worked my way to the victory and it is not 'out of nowhere'
a. What do you think about it overall?
It really depends. If you are playing a two card one trick pony combo, then I am going to pull out my stax deck and we'll see who has more fun.
Well this is an interesting answer, before commenting it I will tell you that personally I am not against stax decks (I don't have one but I think they are valid options and sometimes they are the only option for certain metas)
1. 5 Mana for Exquisite blood
2. 5 Mana for Sanguine bond
3. Oloro to trigger
At first sight seems easy right? but it supposes several challenges.
1. If you play one of the enchants at a turn, the table will know what's coming so they can respond, maybe with a counterspell, maybe with a removal.
This is the really unlikely scenario, your drop one enchant in a turn, it survives all the turns, then you cast the other one, it resolves and survive all the turns and then you win. No one has counterspells, no one has any sort of enchant removal
2. If you play both at your turn you need 10 mana for the enchants and at least 2-4 for protection and counterspells in your hand and some way to gain life that turn (another card in the table)
In this scenario you need 12-14 mana and have those specific 4 cards in your hand and a life gaining card in the table or in hand (if it is in your hand you need to add that cmc to the available mana) and your opponents don't having answers.
Exquisite blood/sanguine bond isn't the kind of combo I am talking about, nor are the scenarios you are mentioning. Those are games with fair amounts of interaction. Besides, if you win with test of endurance in a multiplayer pod, kudos to you! That is usually a hard win to manage, counterspells or no counterspells.
I am more referring to combos like power artifact+grim monolith as an engine combo. Certainly oloro decks are in the colors to both find two card combos and then protect them, and other combos are what I find more obxnoxious. Or the guys who run up to a ridiculous amounts of mana to entwine a tooth and nail to win the game that way (many green based decks manage this). There are also the omniscience/enter the infinite with high tide etc. guys in my meta. These are all reasons I have my angel stax deck around...just in case someone needs competition that is really hard to deal with. I am sure that if the guy in your meta has to deal with the sorts of combos I have mentioned, he'll change his tune real quick about the one you pulled off.
I think Combos are a necessity because sometimes the board gets so muddled up that it becomes the only way to win. i will always include one for such a case. it's more of a plan c in case plans a and b go south.
Personally, I hate 2 card combos that just “win the game,” like Bond/Blood, or even worse, Gitrog/Grave Troll. I know some people love winning over everything, and so they play combos that essentially ignore the rest of the table. I find the fun in EDH in crafting the most interesting way to win. Hence by my Zedruu deck cannot go infinite unless I assemble 4 cards.
However, I do agree with the many who said that at some point games just need to end. Which is why I built a deck around Hive Mind/Final Fortune/Warrior’s Oath/Last Chance. We all get 1 more turn (I run a bunch of ways to not lose on my turn). Come at me, bro.
a. What do you think about it overall?
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
a. I'm not someone who uses combo in a big way, I try to go for more 'overall synergy'. But I have no problem with it in theory. If a deck is tuned to combo out t3/4 I'm not interested. If it's a 'just in case' way to win the game that isn't consistently and reliably available each and every game, I'm happy.
b. Absolutely not. Some games just drag on, and they need to end. Your meta may vary, but there's something really frustrating about sitting in a game no one can win.
c. Control isn't easy. In most decks/metas/cases, anyway. You really need to know your deck well, know your meta well, and know when you have space to make your move. I don't consider t3/4 combo decks to be control. That's a different beast. Also, I don't think every control deck runs combo, nor does every combo deck run control.
d. Well, sure, that's kind of the essence of combo. Unless you're stretching out with a 4 card combo, most of the usual combos do come out of nowhere - you have neither component on board, all of a sudden both are there, you win. At that time in the game though, you can hardly complain, which seems to be the point you were driving at. I think you're fine.
You know, I was just thinking about the OP and the Commanders listed, and suddenly started laughing. All those high-powered Commanders and one guy is complaining about turn 10–18 combos? Seems like he’s in the wrong group to be honest. Holding off that long with some of those Commanders, you just can’t get mad about a combo at that point.
To be honest, sounds like a pretty fun meta actually.
A deck that attempts to combo off t5 or earlier, that doesn't give a damn what the other players are doing so long as they're not attacking their manabase or combo pieces, is just something I'll never understand. I get the desire to not have long, drawn out games, but I don't get the desire to run through an if...else loop for ten minutes instead.
Comboing off far later in the game depends but is almost invariably okay. All other players have had chance to interact with whoever comboed off, and everyone has had ample time to get removal/counterspells in their hand. If they blew them on some other junk, or they just don't have good removal, that's on them.
You know, I was just thinking about the OP and the Commanders listed, and suddenly started laughing. All those high-powered Commanders and one guy is complaining about turn 10–18 combos? Seems like he’s in the wrong group to be honest. Holding off that long with some of those Commanders, you just can’t get mad about a combo at that point.
To be honest, sounds like a pretty fun meta actually.
The guy complains about the 'posibility' of combos, in our playgroup so far of all our games I won only once with a combo in a deck that was not a combo deck but has a combo as second wincon. He has the highest winrate in the playgroup (maybe 50%+) and he fears that you can 'steal his win' if you play a combo because he says you may be being powned in the game and you may won anyway.
Remember, in our playgroup there is no thing as a T3-5 combo deck, there are no decks 'tunned to combo' I am the only one that has a couple combos as wincons in control decks.
I see no real difference between winning with combo and winning any other way. Provided the overall power level of the deck is roughly consistent with the rest of the group (in terms of expected winning turn, consistency etc.) then I've no problem with running combos in a casual meta.
And I don't buy the whole "he won out of nowhere which isn't fun" attitude. The genuine "out of nowhere" combo wins are very rare - when someone wins by combo, they've almost always been ramping, drawing cards and/or tutoring to get to the position they can play the combo, as well as acting to prevent other players from winning with removal, especially boardwipes against more creature heavy deck. All these things are the decks' development of their gameplans, just as a deck trying to win by creature beats develops by getting bodies onto the board. If someone swings at me for 40 damage after spending 4 turns playing creatures, I'm not going to claim that he's won out of nowhere. Why then is someone who's tutored a couple of times and ramped a bunch criticised in that way for playing Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood?
The complainer sounds kind of childish to be honest. Also if he's claiming a turn 12-15 is winning out of nowhere, he probably has poor threat assessment and is just kind of bad at the game currently. Hopefully he can push past his ego and realize that not everyone has to play like him and that he can do more to get better at the game.
Different strokes, different folks. For me, I am uncomfortable with playing a deck where I know that the only way for me to win is attacking once at a time with creatures like Sun Titan, or Sphinx of Uthuun. Other players, they are uncomfortable putting something as tame as Wake Thrasher and Basalt Monolith in the same deck, because they are afraid they will just try to sit by the whole game and sneak it in.
Honestly the way that the game is played now, matches are rarely decided by laying down a fattie or two, passing to three players in line who each have no answer or bigger threat, untapping, attacking, then passing orbit after orbit until players are knocked down from 40 life. For that to ever happen, the other players’ decks need to be missing something. Maybe this would happen if they don’t have enough draw and they are top-decking land, or maybe lacking life-gain or any way to mitigate chip damage and they eventually go down. But in my view, decks just aren’t built this way anymore that they sit around and wait to lose to the last person who resolves a 5/5 flying.
That being the case then, what you have ending the game is either a “combo” or a very strong synergy. A token maker doesn’t win sitting around for 3-4 orbits, but then that player casts Triumph of the Hordes. Or Craterhoof Behemoth gets cast, or Avenger of Zendikar with a ramp spell pumping the tokens, or both. Maybe someone flashes in something like Samut, Voice of Dissent or Blightsteel, has a few pumps, and nobody has a maze effect (something which just about every deck runs now).
The questions I after these scenarios are - what’s the difference, and why limit yourself? What is the difference between a combo and synergy that ends the game by combat? You need a counterspell to stop a Craterhoof trigger, you also need a counterspell to stop a Sanguine Bond combo. And as I hope these examples illustrate, you are seriously narrowing the list of cards that are capable of winning games if you impose the combat-only restriction on your group. And why make everyone run Green and push all those other decks out of your group? It will get stale quickly.
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
People will consider “unfair” anything that their deck can’t interact with, maybe rightly so. But, most combo’s can be interacted with, and mostly by decks of all colors, not necessarily Blue. The list of combo’s people run that can’t be stopped by an Anguished Unmaking or Beast Within is extremely short. And a lot of cards that can’t be stopped with removal (Craterhoof, Avenger) are often on people’s list of completely fair, and are run precisely because they can’t be interacted with.
In your example, Sanguine Bond dies to removal. It doesn’t even win the game right away, besies. If it were something like Storm, or Reset-Reiterate combo where you are asking the table for a Blue-only answer, then that’s one thing. But people should run removal, then not be surprised that the game ends somehow once everyone is out of it.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
As far as I am concerned, people worked for it if they built a deck that is capable of producing a win. Not everything in a game can go your way. There is no obligation to at some point have been the prime target of the table, or to expose your winning material to multiple orbits of possible answers.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
Well, this just further reveals this “creatures only” mentality. They have summoning sickness, so can’t win “out of nowhere”. Of course, numerous exceptions exist, and are played precisely because they are the exception. But the player who would say that is the player who never expects any other permanent type to do damage. Obviously, the game would be much more stale if it were strictly true that creatures were the only way to damage opponents.
Honestly the way that the game is played now, matches are rarely decided by laying down a fattie or two, passing to three players in line who each have no answer or bigger threat, untapping, attacking, then passing orbit after orbit until players are knocked down from 40 life. For that to ever happen, the other players’ decks need to be missing something. Maybe this would happen if they don’t have enough draw and they are top-decking land, or maybe lacking life-gain or any way to mitigate chip damage and they eventually go down. But in my view, decks just aren’t built this way anymore that they sit around and wait to lose to the last person who resolves a 5/5 flying.
That being the case then, what you have ending the game is either a “combo” or a very strong synergy. A token maker doesn’t win sitting around for 3-4 orbits, but then that player casts Triumph of the Hordes. Or Craterhoof Behemoth gets cast, or Avenger of Zendikar with a ramp spell pumping the tokens, or both. Maybe someone flashes in something like Samut, Voice of Dissent or Blightsteel, has a few pumps, and nobody has a maze effect (something which just about every deck runs now).
I understand what you are saying, but the timmy in me can’t totally agree here. I can’t speak for stores because I don’t really play there. I nevertheless believe that with a casual meta like in the OP where uber-fast combos aren’t the every game choice, there is a place for creature decks still. Combined with some strong control elements and synergistic creature buffing, an aggro strategy should still be viable if you can recognize the signs of a combo setup. My friend and I still find ways to win playing that way, whether it’s going wide with tokens and mass buff, or putting one to two things out that can do 18-30 damage per attack (pretty common for my Xenagos deck). Either way, a balanced creature battlecruiser deck can still do well in those environments.
That all being said, the guy whining about the possibility of a combo win needs to grow up because it takes strong synergy to make a creature deck work under most conditions, and they are getting closer to being combo decks unto themselves except using creatures, and this may be where you are ultimately correct in the long run. I will admit my most spectacular creature kills are from piled synergy effects.
Honestly the way that the game is played now, matches are rarely decided by laying down a fattie or two, passing to three players in line who each have no answer or bigger threat, untapping, attacking, then passing orbit after orbit until players are knocked down from 40 life. For that to ever happen, the other players’ decks need to be missing something. Maybe this would happen if they don’t have enough draw and they are top-decking land, or maybe lacking life-gain or any way to mitigate chip damage and they eventually go down. But in my view, decks just aren’t built this way anymore that they sit around and wait to lose to the last person who resolves a 5/5 flying.
That being the case then, what you have ending the game is either a “combo” or a very strong synergy. A token maker doesn’t win sitting around for 3-4 orbits, but then that player casts Triumph of the Hordes. Or Craterhoof Behemoth gets cast, or Avenger of Zendikar with a ramp spell pumping the tokens, or both. Maybe someone flashes in something like Samut, Voice of Dissent or Blightsteel, has a few pumps, and nobody has a maze effect (something which just about every deck runs now).
I understand what you are saying, but the timmy in me can’t totally agree here. I can’t speak for stores because I don’t really play there. I nevertheless believe that with a casual meta like in the OP where uber-fast combos aren’t the every game choice, there is a place for creature decks still. Combined with some strong control elements and synergistic creature buffing, an aggro strategy should still be viable if you can recognize the signs of a combo setup. My friend and I still find ways to win playing that way, whether it’s going wide with tokens and mass buff, or putting one to two things out that can do 18-30 damage per attack (pretty common for my Xenagos deck). Either way, a balanced creature battlecruiser deck can still do well in those environments.
That all being said, the guy whining about the possibility of a combo win needs to grow up because it takes strong synergy to make a creature deck work under most conditions, and they are getting closer to being combo decks unto themselves except using creatures, and this may be where you are ultimately correct in the long run. I will admit my most spectacular creature kills are from piled synergy effects.
I agree with both of these assessments at the same time - any need decks to be well built to win games - synergy is combo's oft-forgotten brother, and either way it's the use of advantage that is leveraged by each - be it turn by turn in large increments, or in one fell swoop. If you can't generate more than one card's worth of value from most of the cards you play you will struggle to win.
I feel like the guy in the losing situation in this scenario had 18 turns of opportunity to make something stick, and getting sour about not having an answer this late in the game is unfair. There is no deck that has no flaws or weaknesses, so every deck should have some sort of answer, and there's no complaining about the colours you run, because they're available in every one.
I think combos are fine, if you don't overdo it by having a commander that wins the game with 50% of the cards in your deck right there. I always try to include some combo for the reasons stated: The game has to end at some point. Part of the fun is that the game can suddenly end out of nowhere, and that's exiting and surprising. It also means that you can't just throw haymakers, but have to read the board and hold back once in a while to stop from suddenly losing.
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
Losing is never fun, and it's fair within the rules of the game. As for the EDH social contract; As long as you're not liniarly going for the combo, it's fine and adds layers of tension and exitement. Also, there is always the next game!
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
Ofcourse they work their way to a victory. Especially if they manage to keep their plans under wraps and execute it perfectly, and in new and interesting ways.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
If it's done right, yeah. Off to the next game. Fooled once, shame on me...
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
After 18 turns, there are dozens of one card win conditions at anyone's disposal, (Exsanguinate comes to mind), so the idea that a win condition that requires more than one card to end the game is unfair is rather silly to me. I like to win with stax/pillowfort/denial decks, and I absolutely thrive on winning by scoops before an actual win condition has even materialized, through the creation of board states where opponents aren't allowed to do anything. I'm an emblem-o-holic. I wouldn't complain one single bit if I lost to a combo deck. I wouldn't complain if it were on turn 2-4, though if such happened consistently, I'd congratulate the opponent on such an amazing deck that's so out of my league, and probably hold off on further games until I upped my game. I'm a firm believer in never expecting an opponent to lower himself to me. Bring your A-game, show no mercy, and I want to see how I fare.
After 18 turns, there are dozens of one card win conditions at anyone's disposal, (Exsanguinate comes to mind), so the idea that a win condition that requires more than one card to end the game is unfair is rather silly to me. I like to win with stax/pillowfort/denial decks, and I absolutely thrive on winning by scoops before an actual win condition has even materialized, through the creation of board states where opponents aren't allowed to do anything. I'm an emblem-o-holic. I wouldn't complain one single bit if I lost to a combo deck. I wouldn't complain if it were on turn 2-4, though if such happened consistently, I'd congratulate the opponent on such an amazing deck that's so out of my league, and probably hold off on further games until I upped my game. I'm a firm believer in never expecting an opponent to lower himself to me. Bring your A-game, show no mercy, and I want to see how I fare.
I think Exsanguinate illustrates perfectly this idea, and similar like Debt to the Deathless and Torment of Hailfire. With Cabal Coffers, Primal Amulet and other such, there is a good possibility that late of being able to dome the table with only lands. So, it doesn’t even fit the literal definition of “combination”, at least no more than any other card in the game needs a combination of lands to cast it.
But, I once pumped 2-3 Vizkopa Guildmage activations into an Exsanguinate, and another player announces to the table that I combo’ed off. Also Molten Psyche and Increasing Vengeance has been called a “signature combo” of mine. Non-infinite, and even vulnerable to artifact removal, but I suppose still considered a combo.
I need no more evidence than this that the people who consider combo as “winning from nowhere” are really only asking for a creature-combat only game. Not only do I think EDH can do better, I think this style of game is highly prone to stalling out by hate cards like Humility, Peacekeeper, Constant Mists, Meishin, the Mind Cage, so on. Not a great table to be sitting at where a game goes on for 2+ hours because of all the combat hate, then the moment someone assembles some non-combat synergy the outcry is “No Fair!”.
I think it depends on a few things. Which turn it's on is kind of irrelevant - super early combos are dumber, but also you lose less time per game, so if anything it's preferable, although I'd be less likely to play another game with that player unless I had a deck I thought could stop them.
(1) if it's some combo I've never heard of and/or requires at least 3 pieces, that's a lot more acceptable to me. There's some creativity and effort there, it's not just "hurr durr I saw this combo on the internet and put it in my deck because I don't know how to win games of magic otherwise"
(2) if I know it's in the deck in advance - either because you told me, because we've played before, or because your deck clearly telegraphs what you're doing, then at least I know what I'm getting into. The most obnoxious wins in a "casual deck" are the ones that come out of nowhere when your deck looked like a casual piece of crap and then suddenly it's kiki+conscripts out of nowhere, now that I've let the shields down for a second.
(3) if it's only a secondary avenue to victory, then that's at least a little bit better, because at least you can be reasoned with - full combo basically has to kill or be killed, and there's no dealmaking, which is both boring and lame. That said, DO NOT hold back your combo if you have it. Nothing is more obnoxious than the guy who could have won 5 turns ago but "only uses his combo as a last resort". If you think your combo is a dumb boring way to win, then DON'T PUT IT IN THE DECK. I plan to play as well as I can to win because I want to test my deck and skills - don't insult me by playing badly on purpose.
One card combos usually are what annoy me the most, like Tooth and Nail combos. They're extremely uncreative and demand you always hold open an answer. It doesn't take much deckbuilding prowess or much work to get off a Tooth and Nail combo.
My playgroup is casual, but for being casual I don't mean very low power decks, we play Atraxa, praetor's voice, narset, enlightened master, Marsil, the pretender, Breya, etherium shaper,Alesha, who smiles at death, Zur, the enchanter, and a very long very well know busted commanders I won't list just for sake of brevity.
There is a player that complaints about the possibility of someone winning with a combo, I don't mean a turn 3 or 5 combo, I mean a Turn 14-16 combo where for instance a player casting Sanguine bond and Exquisite blood plus gaining one life ends the game in a infinite damage or a turn 8-10 Felidar sovereign.
He argues that he does not like that you can win 'effortless' or 'out of nowhere' and I don't know how to make him understand my point of view which is the following.
1. He likes to play heavy creature bases decks, sometimes with counters, sometimes tribal, sometimes graveyard, etc. I just don't. I like other kinds of decks (mostly control decks)
2. It is not true that if a win with a turn 12-15 combo I won 'out of nowhere' or effortless because it is very hard for a control deck to survive long enough in a 4 man table where normally you will be the first in being attacked because of many reasons including that is easy.
From my perspective this is how most games in our group are played (Imagine I start because I won the roll)
I start developing slowly my board turn a a turn, just with lands and mana rocks, after turn 3-4 I can start developing my actual game plan so I can begin casting some artifacts or enchants that will drive me through it.
From turn 3 normally I eat every single attacks of the playgroup (creatures) except if he attack and develop my board or I am just in the weakest spot and I am just being ignored because they won't considered me a threat.
From turn 4 I may starting board-wiping (if I am the focus of the other attacks) or playing some stax things like Propaganda, Ghostly prison or even Delaying shield.
Maybe I can convince someone to focus on other player and I can starting spending some mana in my turn developing my game while holds answers in case of need
The last game I won, that was a very hard one, I casted 6 boardwipes (game ended in turn 16-18 I think), while I didn't won with an actual combo (I won because I had 40 cards in my hand, sanguine bond and venser's journal) I think I may actually could won by dropping a felidar or exquisite blood and It would be the same, I worked for the win, I stand against 3 opponents that gave me no truce, it is so bad to win with an infinite combo in turn 16? why did he sees it as 'unfun' or 'unfair'.
a. What do you think about it overall?
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
I would love to read your opinions in the matter
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I do not see it as unfair, but I do see it as unfun.
It is work to stay alive in a 4+ person game, so you 'earned it'.
It depends on when/how the Bond came into play in the last scenario. Did you flash it in, and kill someone during your upkeep? If not, then people need to answer that stuff, or lose.
Generally if something went to turn 16, its cool for someone to win. But I do understand the person who wants to do stuff every turn towords killing people, not just treading water until they have a combo, even if thats past turn 10.
In fact, I like the idea of having at least one combo in just about every EDH deck, most of all in case the battlefield gets bogged down, or the game has just gone round and round for far too long, etc., etc.
Also, I believe that the line between combo and overwhelming synergy might as well be nonexistent, in most cases. Winning convincingly sans combo is just winning with a slo-mo combo.
For myself, if I know you’re going to win that way, where you have a definite “my death” sitting in your deck, then I am going to make you earn it or else take you out. To do otherwise is not playing sound Magic. I don’t personally play combo and don’t like it, but it is part of the game. That reaction being common is why people build turn 4 combo decks.
This may deserve its own thread, overwhelming synergy (Like Narset, wich technicaly is not a combo sometimes is non-interactive)
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
a. What do you think about it overall?
It really depends. If you are playing a two card one trick pony combo, then I am going to pull out my stax deck and we'll see who has more fun. If you are playing something janky? Well, I do like hilarious games so that's fine. I myself have a mono green infinite turns deck that takes something like 18 cards to go off. Combos like that when they happen is fine, certainly I can't complain. That is working for it!
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
Not at all. Everyone has had time to impact the game, so it is to be expected that someone has to win somehow. Certainly the combo described in the original post had 40+ cards, venser's journal, and sanguine bond? That is pretty janky and there are any number of easy ways to stop it (like blowing up the journal, or stopping you from drawing the cards, etc. ). However, all players have things they hate losing to (in my case, permanent theft, mindslaver, and infect wins). If I see a case of you trying for any of those strategies in my games, rather than try to win myself, I am going to take great and malicious delight in blowing up every single permanent you have and every single deck I have can manage it one way or another. The last time someone tried a simple bribery on me, I was playing a mono green deck with Yeva as my general. One turn cycle later, thanks to a seedborne muse, several other opponents, acidic slime, and temur sabertooth, that player was non-creature permanent free. I searched up an ulvenwald tracker and vigor on my turn and then he no longer had creatures either. Of course, there are those who hate my response, so it goes both ways.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
They do work their way to victory, but they tend to do it in a "not the face" manner until they can finally take control of the game. The reality of such games is that the aggro players with good threat assessment tend to punch that face hard. It's the way it works.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
Hardly. At that point, people need to be trying to win somehow. As stated earlier, if they didn't have the response, that was a fair victory.
Credit to DolZero for this awesome sig!
Don't get me wrong, I love playing control decks too, but I always make sure my control decks have some sort of plan for actually finishing the game out, whether that's combo or voltron or total lockdown or whatever.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
a. What do you think about it overall?
Combo is as combo does. It's as much a part of the game as the combat phase.
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
Good god no. If the game's dragged on that long, someone needs to put it out of its misery so we can move on to another one.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
I don't understand this concept. What is "work their way to victory"? Having enough patience to wait through stalled board states until someone scoops and goes to watch paint dry instead? Until someone decks themselves in a 100-card format? I'd understand the attitude if we were talking about fast combo, since that game is usually won in the deck building phase, but not in the long slog fests you're describing.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
ROFL no. If a player in the game hasn't started to put some sort of game-winning plan into motion by T10, regardless of whether it gets stopped or not, I'm going to think they got mana flooded or are accidentally playing poker instead.
The thing is, sometimes, people who doesn's like combos talk about them as if the games were 'draw, go, draw go, combo', and normally is not (remember I am talking about T10+ combos no T3-5 ones), If I have the T10+ combo means I was able to survive the table long enough and developed the board as needed.
Imagine this scenario, I am playing a life gaining deck, I have vedalken orrery in the table, I have 50 life, I flash EOT test of endurance and imagine I have a counterspell backup.
To be in that postion I need
1. Have 50+ life, wich means avoiding damage and gaining life gainst 3 oponents, and not loosing life or paying life for stuff.
2. Vedalken orrery to resolve and survive
3. 6 Mana AEOT (this is the easy part)
4. A counterspell in my hand
In a 'normal' game this scenario is high unlikely to happen before turn 10+ and what I am saying is that if I was able to gather those resources I worked my way to the victory and it is not 'out of nowhere'
Well this is an interesting answer, before commenting it I will tell you that personally I am not against stax decks (I don't have one but I think they are valid options and sometimes they are the only option for certain metas)
Imagine I am playing Oloro, Ageless Ascetic and I have Sanguine bond + exquisite blood in the deck , to get there I need
1. 5 Mana for Exquisite blood
2. 5 Mana for Sanguine bond
3. Oloro to trigger
At first sight seems easy right? but it supposes several challenges.
1. If you play one of the enchants at a turn, the table will know what's coming so they can respond, maybe with a counterspell, maybe with a removal.
This is the really unlikely scenario, your drop one enchant in a turn, it survives all the turns, then you cast the other one, it resolves and survive all the turns and then you win. No one has counterspells, no one has any sort of enchant removal
2. If you play both at your turn you need 10 mana for the enchants and at least 2-4 for protection and counterspells in your hand and some way to gain life that turn (another card in the table)
In this scenario you need 12-14 mana and have those specific 4 cards in your hand and a life gaining card in the table or in hand (if it is in your hand you need to add that cmc to the available mana) and your opponents don't having answers.
Again very difficult to get before T10+
3. If you play those EOT you need all of the point 2 plus a vedalken orrery or leyline of anticipation.
So as you can see, at first sight it may look like a 'two cards pony' combo, but it is not.
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I am more referring to combos like power artifact+grim monolith as an engine combo. Certainly oloro decks are in the colors to both find two card combos and then protect them, and other combos are what I find more obxnoxious. Or the guys who run up to a ridiculous amounts of mana to entwine a tooth and nail to win the game that way (many green based decks manage this). There are also the omniscience/enter the infinite with high tide etc. guys in my meta. These are all reasons I have my angel stax deck around...just in case someone needs competition that is really hard to deal with. I am sure that if the guy in your meta has to deal with the sorts of combos I have mentioned, he'll change his tune real quick about the one you pulled off.
Credit to DolZero for this awesome sig!
However, I do agree with the many who said that at some point games just need to end. Which is why I built a deck around Hive Mind/Final Fortune/Warrior’s Oath/Last Chance. We all get 1 more turn (I run a bunch of ways to not lose on my turn). Come at me, bro.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
a. I'm not someone who uses combo in a big way, I try to go for more 'overall synergy'. But I have no problem with it in theory. If a deck is tuned to combo out t3/4 I'm not interested. If it's a 'just in case' way to win the game that isn't consistently and reliably available each and every game, I'm happy.
b. Absolutely not. Some games just drag on, and they need to end. Your meta may vary, but there's something really frustrating about sitting in a game no one can win.
c. Control isn't easy. In most decks/metas/cases, anyway. You really need to know your deck well, know your meta well, and know when you have space to make your move. I don't consider t3/4 combo decks to be control. That's a different beast. Also, I don't think every control deck runs combo, nor does every combo deck run control.
d. Well, sure, that's kind of the essence of combo. Unless you're stretching out with a 4 card combo, most of the usual combos do come out of nowhere - you have neither component on board, all of a sudden both are there, you win. At that time in the game though, you can hardly complain, which seems to be the point you were driving at. I think you're fine.
To be honest, sounds like a pretty fun meta actually.
Comboing off far later in the game depends but is almost invariably okay. All other players have had chance to interact with whoever comboed off, and everyone has had ample time to get removal/counterspells in their hand. If they blew them on some other junk, or they just don't have good removal, that's on them.
The guy complains about the 'posibility' of combos, in our playgroup so far of all our games I won only once with a combo in a deck that was not a combo deck but has a combo as second wincon. He has the highest winrate in the playgroup (maybe 50%+) and he fears that you can 'steal his win' if you play a combo because he says you may be being powned in the game and you may won anyway.
Remember, in our playgroup there is no thing as a T3-5 combo deck, there are no decks 'tunned to combo' I am the only one that has a couple combos as wincons in control decks.
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
And I don't buy the whole "he won out of nowhere which isn't fun" attitude. The genuine "out of nowhere" combo wins are very rare - when someone wins by combo, they've almost always been ramping, drawing cards and/or tutoring to get to the position they can play the combo, as well as acting to prevent other players from winning with removal, especially boardwipes against more creature heavy deck. All these things are the decks' development of their gameplans, just as a deck trying to win by creature beats develops by getting bodies onto the board. If someone swings at me for 40 damage after spending 4 turns playing creatures, I'm not going to claim that he's won out of nowhere. Why then is someone who's tutored a couple of times and ramped a bunch criticised in that way for playing Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood?
Different strokes, different folks. For me, I am uncomfortable with playing a deck where I know that the only way for me to win is attacking once at a time with creatures like Sun Titan, or Sphinx of Uthuun. Other players, they are uncomfortable putting something as tame as Wake Thrasher and Basalt Monolith in the same deck, because they are afraid they will just try to sit by the whole game and sneak it in.
Honestly the way that the game is played now, matches are rarely decided by laying down a fattie or two, passing to three players in line who each have no answer or bigger threat, untapping, attacking, then passing orbit after orbit until players are knocked down from 40 life. For that to ever happen, the other players’ decks need to be missing something. Maybe this would happen if they don’t have enough draw and they are top-decking land, or maybe lacking life-gain or any way to mitigate chip damage and they eventually go down. But in my view, decks just aren’t built this way anymore that they sit around and wait to lose to the last person who resolves a 5/5 flying.
That being the case then, what you have ending the game is either a “combo” or a very strong synergy. A token maker doesn’t win sitting around for 3-4 orbits, but then that player casts Triumph of the Hordes. Or Craterhoof Behemoth gets cast, or Avenger of Zendikar with a ramp spell pumping the tokens, or both. Maybe someone flashes in something like Samut, Voice of Dissent or Blightsteel, has a few pumps, and nobody has a maze effect (something which just about every deck runs now).
The questions I after these scenarios are - what’s the difference, and why limit yourself? What is the difference between a combo and synergy that ends the game by combat? You need a counterspell to stop a Craterhoof trigger, you also need a counterspell to stop a Sanguine Bond combo. And as I hope these examples illustrate, you are seriously narrowing the list of cards that are capable of winning games if you impose the combat-only restriction on your group. And why make everyone run Green and push all those other decks out of your group? It will get stale quickly.
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
People will consider “unfair” anything that their deck can’t interact with, maybe rightly so. But, most combo’s can be interacted with, and mostly by decks of all colors, not necessarily Blue. The list of combo’s people run that can’t be stopped by an Anguished Unmaking or Beast Within is extremely short. And a lot of cards that can’t be stopped with removal (Craterhoof, Avenger) are often on people’s list of completely fair, and are run precisely because they can’t be interacted with.
In your example, Sanguine Bond dies to removal. It doesn’t even win the game right away, besies. If it were something like Storm, or Reset-Reiterate combo where you are asking the table for a Blue-only answer, then that’s one thing. But people should run removal, then not be surprised that the game ends somehow once everyone is out of it.
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
As far as I am concerned, people worked for it if they built a deck that is capable of producing a win. Not everything in a game can go your way. There is no obligation to at some point have been the prime target of the table, or to expose your winning material to multiple orbits of possible answers.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
Well, this just further reveals this “creatures only” mentality. They have summoning sickness, so can’t win “out of nowhere”. Of course, numerous exceptions exist, and are played precisely because they are the exception. But the player who would say that is the player who never expects any other permanent type to do damage. Obviously, the game would be much more stale if it were strictly true that creatures were the only way to damage opponents.
That all being said, the guy whining about the possibility of a combo win needs to grow up because it takes strong synergy to make a creature deck work under most conditions, and they are getting closer to being combo decks unto themselves except using creatures, and this may be where you are ultimately correct in the long run. I will admit my most spectacular creature kills are from piled synergy effects.
I agree with both of these assessments at the same time - any need decks to be well built to win games - synergy is combo's oft-forgotten brother, and either way it's the use of advantage that is leveraged by each - be it turn by turn in large increments, or in one fell swoop. If you can't generate more than one card's worth of value from most of the cards you play you will struggle to win.
I feel like the guy in the losing situation in this scenario had 18 turns of opportunity to make something stick, and getting sour about not having an answer this late in the game is unfair. There is no deck that has no flaws or weaknesses, so every deck should have some sort of answer, and there's no complaining about the colours you run, because they're available in every one.
I think combos are fine, if you don't overdo it by having a commander that wins the game with 50% of the cards in your deck right there. I always try to include some combo for the reasons stated: The game has to end at some point. Part of the fun is that the game can suddenly end out of nowhere, and that's exiting and surprising. It also means that you can't just throw haymakers, but have to read the board and hold back once in a while to stop from suddenly losing.
b. Do you think winning with a combo in turn 10-18 is unfair or unfun?
Losing is never fun, and it's fair within the rules of the game. As for the EDH social contract; As long as you're not liniarly going for the combo, it's fine and adds layers of tension and exitement. Also, there is always the next game!
c. Do you think control/combo player doesn't 'work their way' to the victory (remember I am talking about casual stuff, no T3 combos, no deck with black tutors)
Ofcourse they work their way to a victory. Especially if they manage to keep their plans under wraps and execute it perfectly, and in new and interesting ways.
d. Do you think winning with a combo in T10-18 is 'out of nowhere'?
If it's done right, yeah. Off to the next game. Fooled once, shame on me...
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
I think Exsanguinate illustrates perfectly this idea, and similar like Debt to the Deathless and Torment of Hailfire. With Cabal Coffers, Primal Amulet and other such, there is a good possibility that late of being able to dome the table with only lands. So, it doesn’t even fit the literal definition of “combination”, at least no more than any other card in the game needs a combination of lands to cast it.
But, I once pumped 2-3 Vizkopa Guildmage activations into an Exsanguinate, and another player announces to the table that I combo’ed off. Also Molten Psyche and Increasing Vengeance has been called a “signature combo” of mine. Non-infinite, and even vulnerable to artifact removal, but I suppose still considered a combo.
I need no more evidence than this that the people who consider combo as “winning from nowhere” are really only asking for a creature-combat only game. Not only do I think EDH can do better, I think this style of game is highly prone to stalling out by hate cards like Humility, Peacekeeper, Constant Mists, Meishin, the Mind Cage, so on. Not a great table to be sitting at where a game goes on for 2+ hours because of all the combat hate, then the moment someone assembles some non-combat synergy the outcry is “No Fair!”.
(1) if it's some combo I've never heard of and/or requires at least 3 pieces, that's a lot more acceptable to me. There's some creativity and effort there, it's not just "hurr durr I saw this combo on the internet and put it in my deck because I don't know how to win games of magic otherwise"
(2) if I know it's in the deck in advance - either because you told me, because we've played before, or because your deck clearly telegraphs what you're doing, then at least I know what I'm getting into. The most obnoxious wins in a "casual deck" are the ones that come out of nowhere when your deck looked like a casual piece of crap and then suddenly it's kiki+conscripts out of nowhere, now that I've let the shields down for a second.
(3) if it's only a secondary avenue to victory, then that's at least a little bit better, because at least you can be reasoned with - full combo basically has to kill or be killed, and there's no dealmaking, which is both boring and lame. That said, DO NOT hold back your combo if you have it. Nothing is more obnoxious than the guy who could have won 5 turns ago but "only uses his combo as a last resort". If you think your combo is a dumb boring way to win, then DON'T PUT IT IN THE DECK. I plan to play as well as I can to win because I want to test my deck and skills - don't insult me by playing badly on purpose.
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
Beating Face with Bane
Beatrice, the Golden Witch