Sen Triplets

Combos Browse all Suggest


Format Legality
1v1 Commander Legal
Block Constructed Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal
Commander: Rule 0 Legal
Custom Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Highlander Legal
Legacy Legal
Leviathan Legal
Limited Legal
Modern Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Vintage Legal

Sen Triplets

Legendary Artifact Creature — Human Wizard

At the beginning of your upkeep, choose target opponent. This turn, that player can't cast spells or activate abilities and plays with their hand revealed. You may play cards from that player's hand this turn.

Recommendations View more recommendations

Spisepinden on The archenemy

3 months ago

Given the Archenemy setting, I would definitely go with good 'ol Nicol Bolas, especially since many of the Archenemy scheme cards directly reference him. From there, I'd assemble a deck with some kind of long-winded game plan that culminates in a big play, supported and enabled by a thematic scheme deck on the side.

Of course, it ultimately comes down to how casual of a setting she'd be using the deck in. There's lots of cards like Nekusar, the Mindrazer and Sen Triplets which can be min-maxxed into becoming incredibly oppressive and competitive lock-down/solitair-style decks if that's more what you're after, but personally I'd avoid decks like that outside of a directly competitive environment.

spaghettibeast on The archenemy

3 months ago

In terms of EDH, Sen Triplets seems good. Esper has a lot of options for turning yourself into the archenemy without even using the Triplets which also make everyone hate your deck. Other mean EDH decks I have experience are helmed by Crosis, the Purger, Jin-Gitaxias, Progress Tyrant (rated #1 for least fun among my play group), and Ephara, God of the Polis. Hope this helps. I have decks for all of these and will link them below.

Ephara: Ephara Flash Control Jin: Jin-Gitaxias' Photocopier Crosis: Fun Police

CoarselyRefined on What ONE card would you …

5 months ago

I'm on-board with #TeamParadoxEngine too. The banning took my Sen Triplets deck from beast to least in my meta.

LandoLRodriguez on [PRIMER] Morophon's Tribal Tribal

8 months ago

TheoryCrafter thanks for your comment! I totally agree with everything you said in part 1. I always prefer activated/triggered abilities over ETB/death effects that do the same thing in my commander decks. Niv-Mizzet Reborn is meant to be more of a bomb late game play than a true source of card advantage. I'm gonna wait to see how many guild color combos I wind up with as I whittle this list down. Seems to be way more Azorius and Selesnya than others at this point, although most guilds are represented in my master list here. We'll see, he probably won't make the cut, but it could be quite an impact for a card I can cast for free with Morophon in play.

It looks like there's only a couple tribal effects that I can't get on creature cards (making Cover of Darkness a mortal lock). Looks like most of my enchantments and artifacts will be for cheating creatures in. I can't wait to finally get to play Didgeridoo!

Definitely going to prefer creatures with no more than 1 of each color mana symbol, but there's some with 2 that're gonna be too good to pass up. I don't entirely love the break from MtG lore in some of the secret lair stuff, but Rick, Steadfast Leader is one of the very best tribal buffers I think. Death Baron seems like the only true deathtouch aura. Cards with 3 colored symbols probably won't make the cut for that reason (sorry, Azami).

For part 2, I hadn't considered Padeem + Forge for this deck. It's a combo I know well, I look to get them out in my artifact heavy Sen Triplets deck. Combine with Mycosynth Lattice to make ALL your stuff nearly impossible to kill! Anyway, I think I'm going to lean more towards trying to get Nexus back from the GY rather than protecting it in play. Protection doesn't keep it from being discarded or milled. Since posing my questions, I added Academy Ruins and Emry, Lurker of the Loch to my list and I think they'll be sufficient. Ruins will almost certainly make the cut, and hopefully I have a slot for Emry, and I think I'll try to find a slot for Padeem too. Even if they're mostly mana rocks, I should be running a good number of artifacts. Thanks for bringing him up, and for commenting in general!

aholder7 on New Social Contract Breach Discussion

8 months ago

I would say in most any situation I'm not a fan of a single player conceding, with the main exception being concessions that end the game. If everyone is conceding or it's down to 2 then it's not really an issue as everyone involved has had their say and no one is impacted.

Is there a difference between leaving in response to lethal combat with lifelink and leaving at sorcery speed when you feel out of the game? yes, obviously. The first one is far more malicious, but that doesn't mean that the second one is completely justified. There was an argument made that scooping is an issue when you might provide an (dis)advantage to someone with your absence. I agree, but this will always be the case. If only for the reason that you don't know what everyone else is capable of. You might only be useful for another player because someone will still need to take a turn out of their master plan to kill you. but that buys everyone else at the table a turn.

When you are playing in a multiplayer game, people make decisions based off of your existence. No matter how little you feel you would contribute to the game, or how little chance you feel you have at winning, your existence matters. You change everything from the math on cards like Exsanguinate, to the options of cards like Sylvan Offering. Your presence might be poor now but things have the ability to change, especially since you being in a poor spot means that many people might leave you be since you're not a threat.

To be transparent, I used to often be in the situation where friends of mine would concede and this would lead to me subsequently losing the game. So I do have some experience with the issue and have a reason that i'm arguing this side of things. But i think lots of people underestimate the ability to make a comeback in a game as swingy as edh. what does your empty board state even mean when someone could just play Farewell next turn and level it out? In one game where I was spectating, my friend, who did this frequently, decided they were going to concede because they felt their board state was untenable. They had nothing but lands in play and they were even behind in that. I asked if they wouldn't mind if i just took over instead if they were just going to leave. everyone was fine with it since i had no knowledge of anyone's hands or anything. I then went on to win that game because edh is like that sometimes. They have since stopped conceding as much. but you know what, i could have still lost that and i think the point would stand. even if i never came back from it. because i could have, and other people still had to devote their in game resources to me and my existence.

trying to respond to some of the above comments questions

legendofa: would it matter if they said it politely instead of "threw a tantrum"? yes, but while the second scenario is more polite i still don't think they should do it. and to your supplemental questions.

1) No it's not fair play to concede when being attacked. this is by far the most cut and dry of these as there are very clear consequences for the attack resolving or not. I think most people would agree this is spiteful. does it matter more if they have 4 life? yes but its still a spiteful play even if the attacker has 300. Regardless of the fact that the difference between 300 and 350 life might not matter to most, it's still was only done to spite the other player. this is very rude and very poor sportsmanship.

2) Still no. Sure they sacramented all 15 of your removal spells, but theres other players at the table who could kill it. And if Sen Triplets still is choosing you every turn its because they feel that any card you draw would be amazing to have otherwise they should be picking someone else. You should try and use this situation to your advantage. Invite the other players to attack and kill you. Sen now has to either defend you or start allowing you to defend yourself. Either way your likely to have more leverage in the argument than you'd think.

3) Also no in again what feels very cut and dry to me. you are literally going to make someone else lose/start losing because of your decision to leave. This is just a small step removed from scenario 1 in my mind.

There was also a mention by plakjekaas (hopefully i don't have another episode of spelling your name wrong like 3 times), where others are expected to explain the reasons for the detriment. But that now means that you likely have to give up secret information such as cards in hand or your strategies that opponents might not be aware of. we agreed on most of the scenarios except for the Sen trips one but i wanted to point out that you are right that when a player takes all of your things that it can be a detriment to fun and lead to a terrible game experience. But i think that if you see that as an unfun experience (which it is very reasonable and acceptable to feel that way) then you should bring that up before you start playing with a sen trips deck at the table. because once the game begins the sen trips player has to start doing that to people as thats what their deck is designed to do.

I understand a lot of arguments about leaving when you are not having fun, but this also then leads to other players having less fun because of said leaving. Yes you can and should talk to people about things before hand such as this, but i think the baseline assumption should be that if you are there to play the game you should stick around to play the game through the ups and downs.

legendofa on New Social Contract Breach Discussion

8 months ago

Gleeock I haven't gotten in a multiplayer game with randoms for years now, I've never played cEDH, and I don't actually have a regular group at the moment (frustration and sadness), so I'm probably out of touch with actual multiplayer reality.

All the same, though, I have a couple of responses. "[T]he only other valid player threw a tantrum & left the game" is not good play. But I take special exception to the tantrum. If, hypothetically, the other player said "I'm afraid I have no chance at winning, I concede. Good game, and well played," would that still be an issue? I understand that the game flow can be radically changed by who's present and available. However, I see the following: conceding gracefully is respectful and legal. Conceding with a tantrum is disrespectful, but legal. Refusing to vote on Expropriate, then continuing to play, is disrespectful and illegal. And 104.3a very much says a player can dip out of it all: "A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. That player loses the game."

But the legality of concession isn't really the issue here. The issue is "when is quitting the game right to do?" Instead of directly answering, I'd like to add some supplemental questions, based on this thread and my own thoughts.

  1. Is it fair play to concede in response to being attacked? If Gahiji, Honored One Beatdown attacks Tobias Andrion with a Titanic Ultimatum and enough creatures to defeat Tobias, can Tobias concede immediately to avoid the lifelink damage? Does the answer change whether Gahiji is dominating the match at 300 life + board vs. barely hanging on at 4 life and built up a Fervored board this turn?

  2. Is it fair play to concede if a player can reasonably expect to be unable to proceed, if an opponent is relying on their presence? If Sen Triplets Stax has stripped all artifact removal from The Lady of the Mountain's deck through Sadistic Sacrament and has taken control of nearly all of The Lady's permanents, can The Lady concede on the grounds that she reasonably believes she can't win, even though it would cost Triplets some key blockers?

  3. Is it fair play to concede a game if it forces another player into a line of action? Marisi, Breaker of the Coil Combat Control goads Jedit Ojanen into attacking. During Jedit's first main phase, before Jedit attacks, Barktooth Warbeard gets a critical removal spell countered and decides this game is unwinnable. Is Barktooth free to gracefully and respectfully concede, forcing Jedit to attack the remaining available player?

I don't claim to have objectively correct answers to these questions, but I think they add some needed nuance to the central question of when someone can concede to another person's detriment.

Obviously, conceding shouldn't be done yelling and tableflipping. But assuming a modicum of decency, I think conceding should be available at any time, within the agreement of the group. It can be difficult to determine whether conceding is done tactically, spitefully, or simply to cut losses, and having a pre-match conversation can settle these issues, so that's a point I strongly agree with. In a more competitive setting, I guess leave it to the judges to explain pre-tournament and adjucate as needed? That's outside of my expertise.

TypicalTimmy on New EDH mechanic - Treachery

9 months ago

Omniscience_is_life, ooooh thanks man! That's really interesting. Makes Sen Triplets much easier to run now! I tried to build them like... four times? But I kept running into not enough sources to produce enough of the off-colors. Sweet.

Load more
Have (1) Azdranax
Want (1) GrandRoyal