Win Conditions / Near-whining Musings
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on May 30, 2022, 12:26 p.m. by FormOverFunction
I was going to post something like this as a reply to someone’s who was asking about deck functionality but thought better of it, as it would have been largely unhelpful. Would (or have) any of you consider(ed) making a deck that doesn’t have any specific win conditions? My first experience with EDH involved a pretty high-powered MtG dude asking if I wanted to try it, and handing me one of his decks. About five turns in he was telling me which tutor to cast and which card I had to find next to make the deck work properly. Needless to say, I felt like I was on one of those lackluster parking lot roller coasters. The general spirit of MtG was entirely lacking. It was like I was putting together a three piece jigsaw puzzle that was mixed up with a deck of playing cards in a pillow case. ANYWAYS - I really liked the idea of super-restrictive deck building (singleton and color limitations) so I was hooked nonetheless. Recently I realized that aside from general damage, none of my favorite decks have that sequential A -> B -> C process, and that makes every game I play extremely enjoyable. Am I crazy, or might some of you also enjoy this? Do you already have a deck or two like this? For clarification: decks like that first deck I used are 100% Magic: the Gathering. I do not want my whining to be misinterpreted as “you’re not playing REAL magic!” because that’s completely wrong. It seems, though, like some or many of you might really enjoy dropping the pretenses of min/maxing your decks and just floating on the gentle rolling waves of the OCEAN of weird and exciting cards we have at our disposal. We’re lucky to have decades of these cards, and I want to inspire some of you to give it a shot at some point. Take care out there, and Happy Memorial Day to those of you it applies to. I’m glad you’re all here!!
I get a certain joy out of EDH decks that don't worry about winning. I also like decks that are in odd colors for what they do. With that in mind, and with no modesty whatsoever, I present the only pure group hug deck I've ever seen:
Everyone gets to party! Everyone's invited!
Now, I'm going to shamelessly plug another couple of decks. They do aim to win, but they are designed for a literal pocket change budget. (Also, I want to get some more feedback on them. If you see one of my decks floating around this site, please check it out. I like upvotes, but I love constructive criticism.)
Basically, EDH is what you make of it. If I can brew something up that makes the game accessible to more people, I consider it a success.
May 30, 2022 3:11 p.m.
Megalomania says... #4
I’m not sure if I understand you correctly (english isn’t my first language) but it seems you’re more into decks that have a central theme or flavor as opposed to more competitive ones that have a repetitive style of play.
My group has a lot of new guys that have more of a casual/tuned decks. Them joining caused a big deal of imbalance since the other, older members were into more competitive stax and combo decks. I decided to “fight” the competitive guys by building a Kenrith deck that had sort of an anti-stax, pro-casual deck theme. Filled it with mana doublers, group hug pieces and spot removals which I use to take “unfun” cards out of the game. This allowed the more casual players to use their weird cards a lot more and at the earlier stages of the game. I act more as an enabler to anyone and everyone. As a challenge to myself, and to make sure I never become sus, I made sure my own deck did not have board wipes, infinite or game-ending combos and relied purely on synergy to win.
I found the change to be quite fun and so did all of the guys in my group. Casual decks have been winning a lot more than before and the competitve guys don’t mind. I win a good number of games myself, mostly after everyone has exhausted everyone else’s resources so everybody seems to be having fun.
May 30, 2022 5:46 p.m.
golgarigirl says... #5
I mean, on paper, some of my decks go A-> B -> C for the win, but they never work that cleanly in practice so...I guess it keeps things interesting???
More seriously, I build decks as more than just 'shells for a wincon'. For me, a dedicated wincon is just there to make sure the game eventually ends (my pod is known for marathon 4-5 hour games under the right conditions). Oftentimes I like building around a few cards or a strategy I just really like, or alternately, building in a strategy I know squat about to push myself (I'm looking at you IZZET SPELLSLINGER). I have super budget decks built to prove points and help new players get into the game, and a few decks built so I don't scare said new players out of the game. And a few decks attempting to scare people out of the game. As long as we're having fun, it's good.
May 30, 2022 7:05 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #6
Personally, I actively stride away from things such as infinite combos, because they aren't fun for me - in most cases. For example, Curiosity and Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius. Building Miirym, Sentinel Wyrm, you would think having both of these cards is a glorious way to win the game, yes? And are both individually powerful enough to be slotted in, regardless of their infinite win combo.
But, then when I play, two things happen. First, I feel like I must or should get that wincon online. This means tutors, copious amounts of draw, control, etc. Suddenly the whole entire deck becomes an engine for that one thing. Now I am not playing to have fun, I am playing to win.
But I don't care if I win, I care that I am having fun and a good time.
Second, I feel bad that I "won" because I resolved two spells. That the only reason I "won the game" is because I produced 7 mana. Especially if you produce 7 mana by T3 and happened to get both of these online. Because now you have players who took a good hand, had a gameplan, were invested, ready to go to war and I just told them to fuck off because I produced 7 mana.
When I win a game, if it upset other players, it makes me feel terrible.
I would rather lose, than have a deck function the same way every single time... ramp, tutor this, draw, resolve, win. Gg. Next game. Mulligan. Take. Ramp. Resolve. Gg.
That's not my style. I'd rather have an hour long battle where the tides of power heave back and forth and you never know WHAT'S about to happen, than draw an opening hand and go "Tutor X, okay Y. Gg."
That is far too mechanical for me. Too unfeeling. Especially when players use this as justification to berate and belittle others.
It's like, "Oooh wooow you're SUCH an accomplished player because you spent $4,500 on a deck and copied a wincon or two from the internet. Woooow how ever shall I be worthy of your immaculate presence."
Nah. Give me a battle to the death over 15 turns any day. That's why I don't play cEDH. I'm not about to spend the price of a used car on 100 cards just to have some meaningless self gratification in saying "I won" because I set pieces of cardstock on a kitchen table.
It just ain't my cup of tea. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
It's a game. Have fun. If wincons and competitive natures is your idea of fun, wonderful!!
But it isn't my idea of fun.
We are each entitled to our own forms of entertainment.
You do you, and I'll do me ^-^
May 30, 2022 9:24 p.m. Edited.
I started EDH with Captain Sisay, so I know formulaic endgame-focused decks. I've found myself enjoying more midgame decks, random Timmiestuff that proceeds to the endgame but does so in incremental pieces, pulling tutors and replacing with Selvala's Stampede And splashplay random spells with more options than win-now creature combos. This is where I can start to argue: what is truly acceptable to call a wincon?
May 30, 2022 9:49 p.m.
TypicalTimmy Your Timmytastic take on this makes me want to pull even more hackneyed combos out of decks, though to be fair, I have pulled most my high consistency same-playline temptations already. Or in decks where they remain the critical mass of tutors is so low that I rarely see them. The most hackneyed one that I still have is Godo, Bandit Warlord & Helm of the Host in my Kardur, Doomscourge deck... Where I have rolled into it before & sortof hated it a couple of times. My biggest issue is that both godo & helm are really good as just standalone cards in the deck as the deck runs major ETB advantage along with several alternate equipment that are fun to fetch as well as helm working amazingly with the commander or tons of ETB creatures. Ah well, if I end enough games in that unsatisfying way then I may just pull the combo, right now I am just trying to stay slim on tutors. But you can see how too much of that kind of play runs counterintuitive to what Kardur wants to do: grind out a combaty, group-sluggy, back & forth game.
May 30, 2022 10:35 p.m.
Squee_Spirit_Guide says... #9
Full disclaimer, I've only ever built one Commander deck and it didn't have a win condition. But outside of Commander, sometimes I start with a win condition. When I do it's usually as a challenge, like winning with Barren Glory, or Filibuster counters. When I do that, I'll try to optimize as much as possible to make the janky win-con work as well as possible.
Most of the decks I have on here fall into that category, but the decks I usually build in paper and play all started with jamming cards I like into a pile, and the win condition (if it exists) was an afterthought. Most of the time my decks could be better if I used different cards or had a more reliable win condition, but for me the fun is in playing and using the cards I like rather than winning outright. Because, let's face it, if you get Spirit of the Night into play by saccing Urborg Panther, Breathstealer, and Feral Shadow you've already won :)
May 30, 2022 11:07 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #10
I think that decks without win conditions sound miserable and boring. But, I may be taking "wincon" differently than the majority of people in the thread. I only have fun when there is a goal that I am trying to achieve and people are interacting with me and I am interacting with them to achieve my goal before they achieve theirs.
A "wincon" isn't just infinite combo or alternate win conditions. "Combat damage", "burn damage", "mill", "storm" (with or without the keyword) are all win conditions. The games I find enjoyable feature well defined plans and interaction. The games I find boring are the "IDK man, lets just vibe for 20 turns that somehow take 2 hours" ones. I play magic to play magic. If you are not trying to complete the objective of a game in that game why even play it?
May 31, 2022 12:08 a.m.
golgarigirl says... #11
For me, a 'wincon' is a way to reliably close a game out, say, 75% of the time. It could be an infinite combo, but more often for me and my playgroup, it's a Clone Legion or a Kindred Dominance. What has a very good chance of ending a game that is going too long? As I've mentioned elsewhere, my group has had it's share of 4-5 hour marathon games, so we've all become aware of how necessary something like this is. Even if it means ending a game 'early' sometimes as well.
May 31, 2022 9:10 a.m.
Idk if I could do it, In casual play I can take or leave a win, but I always have to interact. There is nothing worse then just sitting there watching a game and not being apart of it other then waiting for the once or twice a month that I get to have a magic night and spend the entire time trapped in a single never ending game.... therefore everydeck I build is built around a function with a purpose and will out right end a game.
May 31, 2022 11:47 a.m.
Grubbernaut says... #13
I can't relate, personally. Decks with no wincons are tiring, to me. I like knowing what the win state is and trying to get there (or disrupt it).
May 31, 2022 12:46 p.m.
I think there is some misinterpretation here though. When a huge percentage of your cards are Timmy lifeloss/game advancement you cannot point to any one wincon like the engine-to-specific-wincon players do. When people ask, you pretty much can say the whole deck is the wincon. Same thing with groupslug, where any board state advancement is technically your "wincon". Some recursion goodstuff decks are like this as well, where they just play responsive (maybe GARY has been pulled)... But they still progress the game & then you say " my wincon is whatever the game gives me". I never know how I will close out a game with my Thantis, the Warweaver deck, but I definitely do. Again, my buddies Liesa, Shroud of Dusk deck does the same, no major planned wincon, just mistake attrition that adds up to closing out the game.... And neither of these are slow
May 31, 2022 1:46 p.m.
I think it's best to define a win condition as an action, not as a specific card or set of cards, even if it's used that way.
"Attack with a lot of big trample creatures" is a win condition. "Thoracle/Lab Man" is shorthand for "Attempt to draw from an empty library while controlling an effect that turns that loss into a win." "Fireball" isn't a win condition, but "cast an arbitrarily large Fireball" is. "Altar of the Brood combo" means "set up and use a loop that repeatedly triggers Altar of the Brood."
It's easy enough to define your win condition by the cards involved if it's a combo win, but for non-combo decks, the win condition is more along the lines of "attack with everything I got" or "remove all opponents' threats and attrition them down."
May 31, 2022 2:12 p.m.
Well said legendofa I think there is a wide range of what people define as "wincon". This has led to saltiness before in decks where my "wincon", for example; is having onboard dmg, ramp, & card draw Court of Ire, Klothys, God of Destiny, Curse of Opulence (& 1 attacker) & casting Obliterate... This example would be hated by many as a bad-form no-"wincon" scenario. But in that deck where I'm easily polymorphing bangers: ramp + 7 dmg + 2 dmg + a clutch full of castable damage-dealing cards = wincon against a table of players that have setup engines + traditional wincons... This has also backfired on me hilariously when my opponents are fielding lower synergy decks with high recovery value. But I understand where salt feels acceptable when you are playing against the grain of tradition, when you lose in that way every minute feels like 5 minutes -this is a devil's advocate scenario.
May 31, 2022 3:27 p.m.
It feels like my buddie's Liesa, Shroud of Dusk exemplifies the spirit of FormOverFunction's post. That deck just plays random stuff without worrying about any specifics along the way, but creating a heavy impact or presence from the start to the end of the game, win or lose.
May 31, 2022 3:33 p.m.
It has been kindof nice for my usual meta that about 1/2 of our decks have converted over to a groupslug or goad element. Those inherently allow for more midgame combat & chip dmg with a "we can deal with it later" attitude instead of the amped up "every player needs to be stopped" games. We play some of those too, but it is nice to have a couple of lower synergy disruption decks that sneak a backdoor win here & there just off playing more mid-tier threats or sudden Timmystuff plays that have a high impact but also aren't must play scenarios. Removing some must play/must tutor things has allowed me to play more undervalued bombs like Storm the Festival or Creative Technique... with massive impact + high variance
May 31, 2022 3:48 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #19
I really enjoyed, and greatly appreciate, all of these comments! I also realized that my decks are somewhat symbiotic (parasitic?) in that I benefit enormously from playing with people who have more directed/functional decks. I agree that a four hour game of casting nothing but things like mana rocks and walls is generally disappointing, and I didn’t want to make it sound like that was my thing. The definition of “win condition” is a slippery one, and I like where you all have been going with it. It’s good proof and tribute to the complexity of M:tG, how hard it can be to nail that down. You all sound like a lot of fun, and some day I hope to accidentally bump in to some/any of you!! Thank you!! (Feel Free to continue discussing, obviously)
May 31, 2022 6:21 p.m.
I hear you about min/maxing decks. My first EDH deck was the elfball deck, and it was very much the elfball deck, and it does almost the same exact thing every time. And that thing might be a turn 5-6 win (which for my playgroup is very strong) but honestly I never play the deck anymore other than to test new decks against. I think I found that as much as I like assembling and streamlining a combo, what I really like in a game is to interact through either damage or tricks.
Maybe part of what I didn't like about elfball was the feeling of putting all my eggs in one basket and either it would work or it wouldn't. As opposed to my big angels deck that wins off big angels attacking but also interacts with everyone and plays with my graveyard the whole way there. That aspect of playing in an evolving puzzle and having options and trying to play out those options in your head is so much more fun than winning, in my opinion.
Honestly, I more like to play wincon-wincons so that there is always a threat for my playgroup. Four players with four different threats is the heart of EDH, even if that threat is, have creatures to do damage. But I like to have something just to make sure that everyone doesn't feel like they are playing 3 player. I love the whacky, I adore jank, but I always try to build jank with a little finesse maybe : )
May 31, 2022 6:33 p.m.
rshistorysmuf says... #22
All my decks follow a theme, a style of play. I have two colourless decks, a few 5 colour decks. Mill deck, Trample, Snake Tribal, Banding, Flanking, Voltron, Ping, it has X in cast cost, Haste, I'm trying to build an artifact recursion damage deck with an infinite Monkey Cage 5-6 card combo.
Enjoy making whacky decks that can win... it's fun.
June 3, 2022 6:01 a.m.
For me, a 2 or 3 card combo that kills everyone else is a wincon, but it's far from the only way to define a wincon.
"I'm going to use a value engine (or combination of value engines) to exhaust my opponents resources so that they can't stop me from killing them" Is a wincon.
"I'm going to use extensive life drain/loss to bleed out the table"
"I'm going to voltron up my commander & knock people out with commander damage"
"I'm going to create absurdly large creatures with trample (or go extra wide with tokens) and overrun people"
Those are all wincons. A little more generalised than "I'm gonna assemble cards A, B, & C and use them to create an infinite combo that kills everyone", but they are wincons nonetheless.
Considering how your deck will win the game is an important consideration when building your deck; no plan on how to win equals games that are very difficult to finish, & whilst a marathon commander game may be fun I do prefer that my games have a start, a middle, and an end.
The elephant in the room is of course the higher powered commander decks which have multiple "i win" opportunities contained within, as well as the means to find them easily. This unfortunately is just a side effect of the decks being more powerful: they most likely still have an overarching theme & generalised wincon, but when the opportunity cost of jamming a couple of instant-win combos in there is so low, why not?
Games between higher powered decks can be quite interesting; player A goes for a wincon, player B shuts it down etc... the game is less about the instant win, & more about what you do when that doesn't go to plan. But it requires these decks (and their pilots) to be on the same page.
The great thing about commander is that it's a very broad format & that decks of all different power levels can thrive within it. It just requires a decent rule 0 conversation to make sure that all the players in the game are running at approximately the same level.
plakjekaas says... #2
So do you play other formats, where you should be building your deck with winning in mind?
My (re-)introduction to magic was mostly FNM with a group of people that were grinding preliminary pro tour qualifiers every other week. When other friends found out, they asked me to join their kitchen table gatherings, and after a few weeks of terribly unbalanced matches with different format magic decks, EDH was suggested as the way forward, and I had no idea how I could enjoy 100 card singleton. How do you get the cards you need? My first deck was bad, I didn't enjoy playing it, it was too easy to counter, and then I finally let go of the idea of needing to win, because every time I came close, I got ganged up on. My decks now are usually built to make a noticeable impact on the game, usually not game-winning, but almost impossible to not be impacted by. I'm talking Blind Obedience + Meekstone + Marble Titan. The Great Aurora. I'm sketching up a deck that uses Karma and Stern Judge with Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. I don't need to win, seeing people in disarray over my mere presence is enough for me to enjoy.
However, I do have one or two cEDH decks that can just piece together a win out of nowhere if uninteracted with. It's more akin to the competitive environment where I got into magic, and the people I play those against, are ex-tournament grinders who got separated from their goals due to the pandemic and needed to occupy their mind in a way that was both casual multiplayer for the setting, and optimal lines of play as the way they enjoy magic the most. Both can be fun, but in different ways, and if it's not your own deck, if you're dependant on the others to finish the right tutor chains and such, it's easy to miss out on the enjoyment those decks can bring.
May 30, 2022 2:30 p.m.