Please put wincons in your decks.

[RxPhantom]

Hey Nexus. I had an annoying game a few weeks ago, and I wanted to share it in order to urge players to make better decisions during deck building.

A few weeks ago, I was playing in a pod with some guys, and it slowly became evident that one player was just going to mess up everyone else's plan and then follow up with nothing to actually win. He played Spine of Ish Sah seven times. SEVEN! Breya, Etherium Shaper was his commander, and so he just kept killing things with her ability. He eventually said that the deck doesn't have a way to win, necessarily, and that it was doing pretty much what he built it to do. Then, when I finally amassed a board state to take him out, another player saved him because he thought the game should keep going.

WHAT?! This game was ready to be over, Spine kept ruining everything, another player thinks the game should continue forever, and the other guy was a new player. This game became a chore, so I just wanted to start this thread to plead and beg players to at least have some way to try and win, even if it is silly or janky.

So what say you, Nexus? Do you enjoy durdling? Are you like me and don't like having your time wasted? Should I just go outside and yell at clouds? Would you like to flame me and call me names? Take that to Reddit. Everything else is cool though.

[ISBPathfinder]

There is a difference in the ability to win and dedicated wincons. In my opinion the best wincons are things that you just planned to do as part of your deck functioning that add up to killing players but are also not completely nothing cards when you can't outright win with them. What do I mean by this? Cards like Craterhoof Behemoth is a push for killing multiple players or don't play it kind of a card. I don't play those cards because it has no function if playing it doesn't equate to killing multiple people. There isn't a play craterhoof as a defensive measure, or to answer something keeping you from attacking play. I hate dedicated wincons but I agree that your deck needs a means of winning overall. I just prefer to run cards to make a concept function that also can win instead of running cards that you should only cast to win via.

In short, I both agree and disagree. I think your deck needs to have a means of winning but I hate cards that are just big jam this and the game ends cards that the counter play tends to be countermagic. Having a deck that doesn't really have an option to win though is also lame.

[Crazy Monkey]

I am a big fan of durdling in my games, and have built multiple decks with either no or extremely convoluted winconditions. While I personally enjoy this kind of game, I think that it is important to discuss this before the games start, because many players dislike a drawn out games. A large portion of the reason why certain decks are built that way are for politicking or thematic reason, so having this be unknown is somewhat counter productive.

Admittedly, due to the nature of the games, I do not play those decks as often when they are fully "wincon-less". I'd consider bringing such a deck out without a pregame discussion to be inconsiderate to the other players. If the decks plan is grindy, but directly results in the loss for my opponents then I would not consider it important to have the same level of pregame discussion.

As examples, when I refer to a winconless deck, I specifically mean a deck which uses a 3-4 card combo to win that can only function deterministically if my library is empty and the only choice on a Tasigur, the Golden Fang activation is to return Turnabout. Otherwise the only method to win is attacking with a 4/5, which is equally grindy. This plan is important to have a pregame discussion about.

Contrasted to Athreos, God of Passage, which needs to reduce one or more opponent's life totals to less than 3 in order to set up it's deterministic loops. This plan is actively progressing towards the end of the game.

[Sinis]

I'm definitely guilty of this, but, usually my 'control' pieces can win the game. Less Spine of Ish Sah, and more Ashen Rider or Archon of Cruelty. Like, if I just keep hammering you with them, you'll kind of lose? Spine doesn't have that out.

That said, my group has often pushed me to play more definite wincons that will just end the game (inching towards infinite combos that cause life loss).

[Hawk]

I love durdling, and have 100% died by dredging my whole deck with The Gitrog Monster + Underrealm Lich without an actual plan to win the game afterwards.

But I also do make sure my decks win, or have stopped playing some decks (Daretti, Scrap Savant, The Gitrog Monster) without either figuring out how to get more wincons in the deck or checking with my playgroup that they're cool with my durdle-fest. Daretti is one that has for sure just sat there recurring Spines and Golems ad nauseum so I need to do some work to make sure the deck can actually end things.

[BeneTleilax]

I also love durdle and winning off gradual combat damage. Bring back the two-hour game!

[DirkGently]

@ISBPathfinders perspective encapsulates my preference as well (as my title thingy summarizes).

From my view, the most annoying thing about that game would be someone preventing a lethal strike solely to prolong the game (assuming that's an accurate description). Save him if you think you have a use for him, but I despise meta goals in people's play. Play to win, and the rest (fun, complexity, duration, etc) will follow. If it doesn't, then fix your decks, not your play.

[Sinis]

... have 100% died by dredging my whole deck with The Gitrog Monster + Underrealm Lich without an actual plan to win the game afterwards.

FYI, you do not lose from trying to draw from an empty library with Underrealm Lich in play. It replaces your draw, so you're never actually 'drawing' a card from an empty library.

[ISBPathfinder]

... have 100% died by dredging my whole deck with The Gitrog Monster + Underrealm Lich without an actual plan to win the game afterwards.

FYI, you do not lose from trying to draw from an empty library with Underrealm Lich in play. It replaces your draw, so you're never actually 'drawing' a card from an empty library.

True, but you also probably are going to rapidly become irrelevant and just not have an impact on the game anymore if you reach that point. I guess perhaps you have built up everything you want but even if you aren't dead for doing it you probably aren't in a great spot when that happens.

[Sinis]

True, but you also probably are going to rapidly become irrelevant and just not have an impact on the game anymore if you reach that point. I guess perhaps you have built up everything you want but even if you aren't dead for doing it you probably aren't in a great spot when that happens.

Idk. When I was playing Adun Oakenshield, the one time this happened I stayed relevant because of his continual raise-dead action. Also, my Apocalypse Demon took some names.

[Treamayne]

Personally, I think games <10 turns are worthless. The game has barely begun, and it's over?!?

That said, I very much agree that every deck needs a Way-to-Win ^TM.

Then, when I finally amassed a board state to take him out, another player saved him because he thought the game should keep going.

WHAT?! This game was ready to be over, Spine kept ruining everything, another player thinks the game should continue forever, and the other guy was a new player. This game became a chore, so I just wanted to start this thread to plead and beg players to at least have some way to try and win, even if it is silly or janky.

Out of curiosity, what turn was that? How long had the game been going at that point.

I am a big fan of durdling in my games, ..<snip>.. Otherwise the only method to win is attacking with a 4/5, which is equally grindy. This plan is important to have a pregame discussion about.

I think it's important to note the difference between "Durdle" and "Grind." While often used interchangeably, they are rather different:

Durdling is taking excessively long turns - often with the subtext of building incremental advantage, but not actively progressing the board state toward victory.
(e.g. Top loops, excessive Landfall triggers, etc.)

Grinding is taking a slow march toward victory, but not generally using long turns or multiple loops - often a component of control.
(e.g. previous examples, Exalted "1 creature attacks/turn" without a combo/voltron component, etc.)


When I notice a deck durdling, I try to cut the offending piece(s) or at least limit the amount when possible (some deck archtypes, like Proliferate, will always have some level of Durdle, but it can be mitigated). I enjoy some grindy decks, as long as they aren't Stax based. But I always try to have a path to victory, even if it is "turn things sideways."

[onering]

I'm definitely guilty of this, but, usually my 'control' pieces can win the game. Less Spine of Ish Sah, and more Ashen Rider or Archon of Cruelty. Like, if I just keep hammering you with them, you'll kind of lose? Spine doesn't have that out.

That said, my group has often pushed me to play more definite wincons that will just end the game (inching towards infinite combos that cause life loss).

Its nuts to me that we've reached a point in this format where a playgroup is trying to get someone to change their strategy from winning via controlling the board and attacking for damage to playing self contained life loss infinite combos. It sounds like your playing a very interactive deck, and for some reason they want you to substitute a wincon that requires maintaining your board over multiple turns for one that wins via solitaire.


I think the issue is less needing specific wincons in your deck and more knowing how to win with your deck. Even the most grindy control decks should eventually be able to get there by attacking, provided they do a good enough job playing control. If a guy is trying to just loop Spine over and over, he's probably just playing badly. Was he letting things through so long as they didn't threaten to win the game or hurt him, or was he trying to answer EVERYTHING and not let anything happen? From OP's description, it sounds like the latter. In a control deck with no dedicated win cons, you let your opponents hurt each other and use their answers whenever possible so the game progresses and you answer what you need to, then clean up at the end.

[RxPhantom]

@Treamayne: he cast Spine 7 times. We were way, way past turn 10.

And don't get me wrong, I prefer long games. It's the back-and-forth, interaction, stunning reversals of fortune, and big plays that make this format. But, things need to be happening. If you're not trying to win, what are we even doing? He wasn't constantly on his back foot. He didn't need to keep casting Spine or using Breya to kill stuff in order to overcome us and execute his plan. He was interacting for the sake of it.

@DirkGently: the other player arbitrarily saving him may have been the most frustrating part. He didn't even make a deal to do the saving. He said it was too early in the game for someone to be out. I assure you, this game had gone on long enough. I think I had cast my commander (General Ferrous Rokiric) twice at that point, and had finally amassed enough golems to get the job done, Alibou, Ancient Witness was giving them haste, and then this dude randomly kills Alibou.

I don't think I provided enough context in the OP, but it's hard to recount the subtleties of these kinds of things.

[Treamayne]

I wasn't doubting that it was passed turn 10, just curious how far along the game was when this took place. If he is open to feedback (since he admitted a dearth of ways to close out the game) you may tell him to consider adding (if not already present) Karn and/or Sydri (or even changing the general to Sydri) so he can do things like swing with his massive artifacts (like Spine), and creating interesting combat math. Then, at least, his control elements would have a grinding aspect (so his removal is more about making holes to attack through than just "blow up everything").

Bonus points for using the lifelink dividends to draw with Book of Rass, then beating face with an animated 6/6 Book.

[JovialJovian]

I've used Spine of Ish Sah to win games, but I was animating it and attacking, not just recasting it.

I must say I am somewhat guilty of this though, I tend to build decks based on a concept, rather than a wincon. Sometimes the concept naturally lends itself to a wincon, like the Zirilan of the Claw Dragon Toolbox deck ends up playing a lot of dragons, which are a wincon in sufficient numbers. But sometimes a concept instead just naturally takes the deck into pointless durdling. I've never built a deck specifically with the intent of it chewing up the game and not going anywhere, but sometimes the concept that I thought would pay off, ends up not gaining any ground, and just gums the game up.

Another player jumping in to save the player that's gumming up the game is lame though. If I'm the one durdling things up, I will do my best to shift gears and try to actually win, but I fully expect the table to try and take me out, just to free things up.

[RowanKeltizar]

Hmm, in my meta games rarely go past turn 10 and freqently are over before that. We all play some combo here and there so there is a chance one of us could combo out early. Lethal combat damage can happen as early as turn 4 or 5.

An exception to that was when a new player came to the table with an esper control deck. The deck was basically FILLED with removal and control spells and not much else. By the end of the game, all of us were down to about 10 cards in our library and the store was kicking us out.

Having our stuff countered or bounced or wiped or exiled every single turn was pretty painful. That player eventually lost because he didn't have an actual way to win the game. His graveyard got exiled and he ran out of control. So I tend to side with OP. Games are funnest for me when they don't drag on past turn 15 or so. That said, early wins are equally annoying because no-one really gets to see the cards in their deck. Great, I got three lands and mana dork and you're already comboing off?

[folding_music]

message received. have put Cathedral of War in my Gretchen Titchwillow deck so I can attack for victory <3

[Dunharrow]

I remember my Karador deck had a lot of soft locks. Yosei loops where I would attack for 4 every turn. Sun Titan and Pernicious Deed attacking for 9 every turn.
Realizing that this was not very fun, I put in some infinite combos to help close the game.

I am fine with Control Breya, but put a combo to close out the games.

[lyonhaert]

@RxPhantom was the Breya durdler friends with the one who sniped Alibou?

Like, despite everybody else talking about wincons and stuff...

He eventually said that the deck doesn't have a way to win, necessarily, and that it was doing pretty much what he built it to do.

...the way it's told, the pilot was happy with being the one in the sandbox kicking over sandcastles.

I don't think there's a problem in the community of people not including wincons - most do. Maybe not understanding some of the stuff others have talked about, but I would assume that in this case that it's more a case of having the bad luck of finding a couple of jerks (or at the very least, people whose style of play does not match yours).

[illakunsaa]

I don't know how the breya couldn't win after casting spine 7 times. He could have dealt 21 damage with breya's ability to somebody's face while nuking a second player's board. Add in some breya beats I'm pretty sure thats game.

[FetalTadpole]

I don't know how the breya couldn't win after casting spine 7 times. He could have dealt 21 damage with breya's ability to somebody's face while nuking a second player's board. Add in some breya beats I'm pretty sure thats game.

21 damage from Breya's ability is not commander damage.

[illakunsaa]

I'm aware of that. Thats why you need to add some breya beats too. There is a good chance players life totals are not at starting life totals when he started looping spine. Sure you leave one opponent unmolested but you just leave the weakest one last. The fact that op managed to build a board to kill breya means that breya player isn't playing a winconless deck but instead is just a bad player.

[folding_music]

A bad player in a casual game is someone who didn't bring snacks, not someone who missed a better strategy

[NZB2323]

My deck that probably has the worst win-con is my Sarulf, Realm Eater deck that has no rares and the win-con is commander damage with Sarulf. It mainly just wipes the board. I don't think people like playing against it much and I won't be bringing it with me the next time I play.

The most controlling deck I have is Ghen, Arcanum Weaver, but that has win-cons with Captive Audience, Eldrazi Conscription, Sigil of the Empty Throne, Grim Guardian, Fate Unraveler, and Painful Quandary. I don't think it's fun to play against either. Ghen can get around counterspells, and people need to play enchantment hate and graveyard hate in order to stop me.

The decks I'll bring with me next week are pauper Edric, Minotaur tribal, Cleric tribal, and Infinite Kavu. I try to play fun, interactive, unique decks that aren't too overpowered but have win-cons.

[duducrash]

I appreaciate someone having a clear path to victory. "How do you win?" "I control the board for several turns until I eventually animate my lands and hit for 5 a turn until everyone is dead" is okay to me tbh, just have a general idea