This drives me away from EDH

If you head over to twitter and check out the hashtag #youmightbeanedhdbif, you’ll see a list of suggestions about what acts mark you as an EDH DB – that is, an Elder Dragon Highlander douchebag.
The idea behind the topic is that EDH is fundamentally a “casual” format, therefore there are overly competitive or unfriendly things someone could do that makes them a bad person.
So, two things turn me off of EDH.
The first is deck design. I tend to get about thirty cards in and suddenly suffer from flashbacks to my first days in Magic, where I was basically throwing all my halfway-decent cards into my deck and hoping it would work out. I’m sure if I were sufficiently motivated I’d get over that one. However…
The second one is exactly the kind of sentiment that shows up in this twitter topic.
Here are some of the #youmightbeanedhdb suggestions from various folks across twitter:
you play Armageddon, Decree of Annihilation, Obliterate or Jokulhaups and you have no way to win the game shortly after
You insist on playing a UB Storm Combo deck in multiplayer and kill everyone on turn 4, taking a 20 min+ turn.
You cast Time Strech.
you’ve got more board resets and creature kill spells than creatures in your deck
you play Contamination, Ruination, Blood Moon, Quicksilver Fountain, Sunder, Stasis or other similar disruptive spells
you play Myojin of Night’s Reach when you have Nath of the Gilt-Leaf in play.
You play Shahrazad (Especially on Turn 2)
you never intend on actually casting your general
You snack on nachos and touch everyone else’s cards.
So, there are only two of these I’ve 100% agreed with so far – the comment above, and Ken Krouner’s, which I’ll include below:
you think your strategies are fun and other people’s are not
This. Absolutely this.
A while ago, I wrote about why I dislike unspoken rules. Essentially, it’s frustrating as hell to interact with anyone who keeps their social rules hidden until you accidentally violate one of them, and then suddenly you’re a douchebag.
This really struck me, in watching EDH-related traffic over the last few days, because there was some discussion of this guy as a “douchebag” general:
Anowon,theRuinSage.jpeg
Really? That seemed like a great general to me. I mean, seriously. He’s a vampire bloodsage. He’s also a super-big rattlesnake card – a term I picked up from The Ferret, former Serious Fun author, which refers to a card that is likely to get you targeted for some punishing lickety-damn-split in multiplayer. He’s a flavorful, Legendary Creature that isn’t exactly competitive play material – I’d be happy to see him at my multiplayer table.
Continuing on this thought, let’s return to that sampling of “douchebag” plays above.
you play Myojin of Night’s Reach when you have Nath of the Gilt-Leaf in play.
…sounds awesome. I would love to see that happen in a multiplayer game.
More generally, Ken Krouner hits the problem in this line of thought, which also applies to basically every game in the casual, “anything goes” room on MTGO. “My fun” is fine, but “Your fun” is wrong. But no, I’m not going to tell you what’s okay or not in advance…it would be limiting if we just said you can’t play certain cards. Instead, we’re just going to complain like a petulant teenage girl when you don’t know ahead of time what’s going to be okay or not.
Heck, maybe we don’t even know you’re being a douchebag until you do it. We’ll let you know once it happens, when we’ll accuse you of being a bad person and treat you like crap until you either fix the problem or just go home.
And you know, I’d choose “go home” here, because that sucks.
I like going to a DCI-sanctioned event because I know all the rules ahead of time. I can build my deck to those rules.
Similarly, I have a great deal of fondness for people who make their own rules, whatever they are, explicit. I really appreciate groups that can (1) ban things they don’t like and (2) perhaps incentivize things they do like – for example, having a special points system like Sheldon Menery has talked about, which gives you points for the kinds of plays your group thinks are cool.
Waiting around to ambush people with your unwritten rules is the definition of uncool, and can’t help but turn people off the game so much faster than, say, calling a judge on them for a Game Rule Violation at a sanctioned event will. I really dislike the disservice this does to the community, and wish we could all knock it off, just come out and explicitly say the kind of game we want to play, and leave it at that.
Addendum:
I can see from the replies here and elsewhere that I didn’t make my point clearly. Here it is:
I want clear social contracts.
I’m not saying you need to let me play Kokusho as my general in your EDH game at your store. That would be a dumb argument.
I’m saying that if you are part of a group that hates counterspells, it would be the decent thing to do to tell new players, up front, “You know, we don’t play counterspells for our EDH games, so please don’t.” Then if the new player persists, well, that’s their problem.
The thing I’m concerned about is the idea that the right response to someone playing casual in a way you don’t like is to (1) give them the cold shoulder or (2) just kill them out of your games repeatedly, with no explanation.
Instead, why not just actually state your rules?
“Hey, dude, welcome to our weekly EDH game. Here’s a quick rundown — we use the Legacy Banned list, and we also don’t allow extra turns, and any ‘infinite’ combo is only allowed to go off five times in a row. Cool? Cool.”
The thing that rubbed me the wrong way about the “EDH douche” topic on twitter is that calling someone a “douche” for playing a casual game in a different way than you would play a casual game is, itself, a pretty damn “douchey” thing to do. Similarly, just thinking angry thoughts at someone for bringing a deck you dislike is a far, far more negative thing for the community than, say, having a chat with everyone at the beginning of the game about what kind of game you want to play.
Pauper on MTGO is an excellent example of a well-defined format that fits many of our intuitive ideas about “casual” gaming – they just bothered to actually spell their rules out.
It’s all about clarity. If you want to play a certain kind of casual game, why not have a nice chat about it in advance instead of sending punishing glares and bad vibes at folks who unknowingly violate your unwritten rules?

25 thoughts on “This drives me away from EDH

  1. You’re right. Playing by unwritten rules that you’re unknowningly going to break sucks. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to everyone.
    As the semi-creator of this hashtag, I feel as if I should respond here. My personal motto: Everyone gets something different out of Magic.
    Now, this whole douchebaggery thing works on different levels. For EDH players (the more passionate ones), they’re tired of seeing combos and killing everything every turn, which can happen a lot during EDH games. This whole level of “hate” is just like tournament players playing against decks they hate to play against. “Oh, Jund again.” You’ve seen it, it’s boring, it’s good, yadda yadda yadda. If you’re looking to win the tournament, then it’s a viable, and logical choice. EDHers (for the most part) play to have fun, which is a completely different set of rules. They want to play, not sit watching someone do a combo for 20 minutes; that’s not how they want to spend their free time. If they just wanted to watch something kinda related to what they were playing, they’d watch a Metal Gear Solid cut scene.
    That doesn’t mean that you can’t have combos, or you can’t cast Wrath effects (I do in my decks), it’s about doing something different with your EDH decks to play. While Bennie thinks that Anowon is a Douchebag General, I don’t. Even though it’s a more casual format, you have to be ready to deal with opposing Generals because no matter what deck you play against, they all have Generals. It’s your fault for not being ready for Generals just like it’s your fault for not being ready against enchantments and artifacts.
    Different areas have different metagames where different things are considered “douchey.” I sigh when the player returns his Mindslaver with his ruins and continues to take my turn. If it was a tournament, then sure, it’s all fair. But it’s not really fun, which is the whole point of EDH multiplayer. It goes back to my previous point: I want to play, not watch someone get their rocks off taking my turns.
    ‘Course, it was the “rule” you liked: “you think your strategies are fun and other people’s are not” that kinda makes this whole post a little ironic. You like how your games are played, but not other people’s. There will be greifer people and Group Hug decks (where you benefit other opponents instead of you) where everyone has their own unique style because that’s how they want to play. That’s what’s so great about this format, you can create what you want to fit your playstle.
    You have a legitimate gripe, but there are playgroups that do a lot of this stuff and they still have their fun. If you can find one, I’m sure you’ll have fun with the format. It rewards deckbuilding and creativity while promoting politics. It can be extremely rewarding. But sometimes people don’t want to play politics, and they hate it when I tell the new player to go after them. They think that’s douchebaggery.
    But, to each their own.

  2. Well, to be clear, I have no problem with people playing the game they want to play, or trying to “kill off” a player who is doing something they don’t like within the game.
    But that’s not how I’ve seen this expressed. So many times, I’ve heard people talk about giving the offending player the cold shoulder outside the game, and acting like a jerk to them outside the game. This isn’t a case of, “Oh, shoot, he’s playing Anowon, kill him!” – I cited that as a positive, even. It’s a case of, outside the game, ostracizing the person until they conform to your style of play, even though they weren’t informed in advance about what kind of play the group wants.
    That’s the part that bothers me. Treating someone like a jerk because they violated our unwritten rules, and then continuing to treat them like a jerk until they figure out where that invisible line is and step back over it, that’s just, well, a jerk move.
    Again, this is why I like Sheldon’s approach (or, more properly, the Armada Games approach, I think). They say, “We have two winners, the overall last person standing, and the person who racks up the most points. You get positive points for doing things off this list of stuff we think is cool, and you lose points for doing things off of our ‘uncool’ list.”
    It’s also why I’m fine with people in the MTGO Casual Room who start a game and write “No Counterspells, No LD.” Cool. Now I know what your expectations are, and if I show up with a counterspell /anyway/, then yeah, I’m the jerk. But if I show up with a deck that fits the kind of game you want to play, then sweet, we’re in business.
    For me, it’s about making our expectations explicit, whatever those expectations turn out to be.

  3. I’m going to take a stab at explaining it: it’s a multiplayer table and your opponents (presumably your friends) want to be able to play the game. The point is you grief a lot more of your friends in a group game than you do in a 1v1 match.
    It’s OK if you have the best deck. If you have card(s) that actively hose a single opponent then it’s probably not a huge deal either. But when you have something that stops all your opponents from being able to interact with you then you’re making multiple people unhappy. Is it interesting or fun to frustrate multiple friends / opponents?
    Alex, if you enjoy these griefer effects then try EDH with the Archenemy cards. At least then you will get some free bonuses from scheme cards while all of your friends are trying to take you down 🙂

  4. @Gifts
    Then you’re getting into a whole new territory that not a lot (in my experience) of people tend to do. If they’re going to be jerks and give you the cold shoulder, then that’s their issue, and not an EDH one in general. People who want you to play how they play have a tight-clique of people that only want to do things they’ve always done. It’s like the people saying they play causal then drop 4 Sol Rings on the battlefield. It’s with those people you can’t reason with.
    As for Sheldon’s plan, again, you’re playing for a prize instead of just playing. I like his way of thinking if you’re going a tournament route and make you do different things with your deck. Some people may think that’s against the spirit of EDH, but as long as you don’t have people keep upping their decks to create a cutthroat environment where said douchebag behavior is encouraged because it gets results, then I’m okay with it. Mixing metagames is where you get into trouble.

  5. Hm. I think people are missing my point, which means that the fault is mine – I’m not explaining it well. I’m gonna try to add a note to clarify.

  6. I really, genuinely, don’t want to sound mean when I say this, but when you write about how you’re turned off from EDH (you don’t say it explicitly, but you imply you don’t even have a deck), and then go on to say in no uncertain terms how you think EDH against Anowon would be totally fun, I find you hard to take seriously. =/
    A smaller comment: Myojin of Night’s Reach + Nath is a DB move, killing Mindslicer + Nath is totally awesome. There’s a narrow distinction here, and it’s not got anything to do with Nath.

  7. You don’t sound mean, you just sound like you find different things fun, which is fine.
    Maaaaany years ago, I was in a twelve-player game that had gone on for maybe four hours when one player suddenly killed everyone else with an Ifh-Biff Efreet.
    And it was awesome.
    Myojin + Nath = hands empty, a billion Elves.
    That would be awesome, too.
    To me, Myojin + Nath is actually awesomer than Slicer + Nath. Man, who wants to lose to a Mindslicer? Bah. I want to lose to the evil overlord from Kamigawa Block.
    But the real point is that calling people douchebags (!) for playing /different/ casual is an incredibly alienating thing to do. Why be mean to people because their cool isn’t my cool? I don’t get it.
    I mean, my cube is a one-of-each-card-from-Kamigawa cube. Clearly distinct from other cubes. But I think it’s fine because everyone who sits down with my or any other cube knows what they’re going to do — draft and play with the cards in the cube. Casual, but completely clear and friendly, whether it’s my “Legendary” (ahem) cube or someone else’s Power-9-ed cube.
    It’s not about what we’re playing, it’s about how we’re treating our fellow gamers.

  8. Here’s a situation that will hopefully illustrate where these unwritten rules become an issue. Or maybe it will obscure it… I was playing 4 player commander with norbert88 and two strangers. I had Akroma the red in play, and Norbert and one of the other guys were playing blue decks. I was attacking the other blue guy as he didn’t have good answers to akroma, and I didn’t want to attack the BGW opponent as he could kill her easily. Norbert played teferi and I started attacking him with my two big fliers.
    Here’s where the unwritten rules come in. Norbert expresses disbelief that I’m attacking him, because in his paper playgroup it is accepted that you attack the player with the highest life total. I say I’m attacking him because of teferi, who often is used to protect some infinite combo.

  9. @Russell: It’s an unwritten rule, but it depends on the board state. Attacking someone after they play Teferi isn’t that unusual. I’m just used to one or two players in our playgroup abiding to that rule pretty much no matter what. It can actually be detrimental since a lot of the time you think you’re safe when you’re 2nd or 3rd place but you have no defense up and could be killed easily by someone who doesn’t care who is the highest.
    Anyways, heres an elaboration of my earlier comment “You’re missing the point”:
    First of all, most of those hashtag examples you listed above were from me, and I’ll admit that they weren’t the best examples because I came up with them off the top of my head. I thought quickly of specific situations or plays that have come up in our playgroup that I generally disliked. I wouldn’t specifically call anyone a douchebag for many of those plays, they just cause everyone at the table grief basically.
    I’m not sure what you mean with your comment about deck construction. There are more than enough playable cards in the format, rarely will you ever be throwing in random cards to fill a deck.
    For your second point,
    The whole point of this hashtag was to point out particular plays or actions that we don’t like. Everyone has their own scales of what would be a douchebag move and what would be acceptable. It’s a social format, it makes perfect sense to let people know if you don’t approve of their plays, if someone keeps casting Armageddon or whatever, maybe your group stops playing with them.
    We don’t really give someone the cold shoulder. We might make some comments, but we’ll still allow them to play. We might all gang up and attack them following a Myojin of Night’s Reach or similar shenanigans. There aren’t any bad glares or vibes, pretty much any issues can be resolved by attacking. Usually the person in question is knocked out quickly and they know that they shouldn’t make those kinds of plays. It all depends on the situation.
    Having these kinds of unwritten rules doesn’t make EDH a bad format. EDH is format where you can do and play pretty much whatever you want, unlike the sanctioned constructed formats. It’s okay to have some general rules for people to follow. It is impossible to have one single social contract that everyone abides by. The Banned List goes a long way to stop many of the problem cards, but there are still too many others that cause problems. It all depends on your playgroup. Obviously you can’t just start playing with a group and understand everything, but after playing with a group for a while you learn their tendencies, what things they dislike, what types of cards they each play, and so on. Our playgroup is really casual about mulligans, takebacks, proxies, and several other areas, which we usually explain to new players as they join.
    Hopefully some of that was coherent..

  10. I want clear social contracts.
    I’m saying that if you are part of a group that hates counterspells, it would be the decent thing to do to tell new players, up front, “You know, we don’t play counterspells for our EDH games, so please don’t.” Then if the new player persists, well, that’s their problem.
    I can say for certain that’s exactly how the EDH rules folks see the social contract, and how we’d like people to handle it. In fact, that’s why we use the term contract in defining the rules.. a contract is an agreement established, clearly, *before* the fact. Nebulous, unknown standards are unfair and unfun. (but we also don’t feel that a codified, immutable system would satisfy the varied casual palettes)
    Instead, we encourage people to talk briefly before starting a game… lay out their expectations and start from there. The recommended banned list is there to provide a starting point for those discussions. The MTGO “game comment” someone mentioned (“No LD, No counters” or whatever) is one good example of how it can be done in untrusted environments.
    But certainly, retroactive “Say nothing then whine later when you lose” is… extremely bad form. I don’t think any of the rules committee would encourage or condone it.

  11. @nortbert –
    The “deck construction” bit is independent of casual play. There’s just something about a deck full of one-ofs that gives me flashbacks to the early days of my Magic gaming when I was playing Basalt Monoliths because that was all that I had. I know, in principle, that I can make a gigantic highlander deck with an actual plan, but in practice, I just start getting bored. That has nothing to do with casual play, though, and I have great respect for people who consistently make fun and coherent decks while abiding by the EDH construction rules.
    As for the hashtag thing, well…there’s a big difference between “Plays I don’t like,” and “You’re a douchebag for doing this.” For reference, here’s how I’d apply those terms at a PTQ:
    If my opponent hits Bit Blast into Bloodbrain into Blightning to kill my blocker, clear my hand, and kill both my planeswalkers, that’s a “Play I don’t like.” I sigh, and move on.
    If my opponent calls the judge on me repeatedly to falsely claim I’m playing slowly in an effort to tilt me, that’s “Douchebag” territory.
    The inference, for me (and others like Ken Krouner and Lauren Lee, I think) is that by using such a harsh descriptor, people are saying, “Screw off if you play like this,” and not “Gosh, I’m not a fan of that kind of gaming. That’s why it’s so dreadfully offputting.
    I also think you’re really misunderstanding what I mean by having a clear social contract — which again, means the onus is one me to be even clearer. I don’t think all EDH should have one, unified contract. I just think that by calling people douchebags for not playing it the way any one of us happens to like to play, we’re making a bunch of individual environments that are hostile and hard to get into. I want these things discussed up front, even briefly, like Genomancer indicated. That’s why I used the example of “Welcome to our group, here are the ground rules.”
    Whenever Bennie Smith or some other major advocate of EDH talks not about “Hey, generally you want to avoid this general” but rather says, “Playing that general is a dick move,” it changes the message from, “Here’s how we like to play the game” to “You’re a bad person if you don’t play it like we do.”
    That’s why my original post on casual play mentioned my Mechwarrior days when we all chose to play single-faction forces. We didn’t tell people they were jerks for playing differently, we just said, “Hey, so this is what we like to do here.”
    It’s the combination of unspoken rules and recriminations for breaking them that makes it offputting. If we dispense with either (make the rules spoken, or don’t call people jerks for breaking rules they didn’t know about), then there’s not a problem.

  12. I really don’t see the harm in using “douchebag” in the statement. I mean, are we being completely serious, or joking around a bit? It should be kind of clear that people aren’t going “OH MY GOD YOU CAST ARMAGEDDON AGAIN WHAT A DOUCHEBAG” as much as “Again with the Armageddons? This guy! What a douchebag! My turn?”
    Maybe I’m wrong here, but that’s how I read it.
    (And let’s not split hairs, shall we: the person casting an Armageddon effect in EDH that *only* blows up lands is being kind of a douchebag. That’s just a fact.)

  13. I very sincerely don’t want to come off as rude, but i’m getting the notion that you haven’t played EDH very much.
    Unlike constructed or tournaments, there’s no real tangible prize for EDH. The only reason a group of people would sit down to play it is because they love Magic.
    Sheldon, the creator of EDH had this small snippet about the recent bannings.
    “The watchword of the Rule

  14. EDH players don’t keep it a secret what they think is acceptable or not, its all over most of the EDH articles i have read and is one of the main topics of conversation i have seen with regards to EDH.
    Remember it might not be a fun for you but the EDH community is looking at what is fun for the table not the individual. Let everyone play out their deck and see what comes from the chaos, not one well oiled combo machine turning each game into who can go off first resulting in concessions after the first few turns.
    Basically their whole reason for forming the EDH community is to fun with magic a certain way, and your getting mad at them because you want the community to change and do things your way, as well as failing to fully learn what it means to play EDH.
    Basically just because you fine it fun does not make it a nice thing to do at a casual table, yes it might be cool to see it once, but honestly most guys who build decks like that don’t only play it once.

  15. I have a group that dislikes heavy disruption, Land Destruction, and Counterspell effects, which is tough for me, since the cards I enjoy the most in constructed are cards like Blightning, Rise//Fall, Hymn to Tourach, Sinkhole, Mind Twist, Etc. My solution was to build the deck I really want to build, and build some decks that pander more to their desired playstyle, Now when I’m playing with random folks at the store, where I can expect Myojin hijinks, Zur, Erayo, and Sharuum, and whatnot, I can bust out Xiahou Dun and infinitely recur Temporal Extortion. Home with the guys I can bust out Maeyel, The Anima for some Beast Tribal shenanigans. That’s my personal solution to what I have termed “The EDH Problem” I agree with you. Don’t tell me the way I like to play is wrong, Just tell me it’s not how YOU like to play.

  16. I am fairly sure that is not what rattlesnake means. Rattlesnake is something that looks scary, so it makes people leave you alone, not something that draws attention to you. Classic example: Seal of Doom. That card says “if you attack me, you’re going to lose your guy, so you might as well attack someone else.”

  17. Only the socially inept and a certain type of oblivious douchebag, with very rare exceptions, can’t grasp what’s db and what isn’t.
    If you can’t figure it out, I’d work on it more. The world is full of unwritten rules that you’re not required to follow… but if you do will improve your life.
    Consider this good practice. We’re not spelling everything out for you… be a big boy (girl).

  18. I just want you to know, this made me smile: “you play Myojin of Night’s Reach when you have Nath of the Gilt-Leaf in play”
    Currently building a Nath Deck. I love having fun and I love it when my friends (Or, less frequently, I) pull off a ridiculous combo drawing half of their deck and finally top decking a kill spell.
    How do you have fun in “casual” or unsanctioned play? I quote one of my friends “Be Awesome.”

  19. Much of what you say has weight, merit and much of your article was well thought-out. However, I think Joe brought up the most important aspect.
    Though you can bring parts of legality and logic to social interactions, at the end of the day, sociability isn’t logical. We are emotional creatures that function on more than 1s and 0s. That’s why there are so many lawyers employed to interpret rules. Social rules aren’t easily codified, and less easily understood and followed.
    For example, as a player, I don’t generally enjoying playing a group game with a ton of countermagic preventing everyone from doing what they want. But that doesn’t mean I don’t love a well-placed Gather Specimens or Overwhelming Intellect that totally blows me out. So if I went to my group and said “I don’t like counterspells” – that wouldn’t be the truth. The same can be said for infinite turns, or land destruction or any gray-shaded Magic mechanic. Hell, I can get frustrated at life gain if it’s used poorly enough. So outlining rules for my playgroup are unnecessarily restrictive to them.
    On the flip side, there’s no guarantee that when rules are set out in advance that everyone will be happy no one will become frustrated. A group might say, “We hate land destruction” and then you come with a turn-two Storm combo deck that pisses them off. They tried to set out logical rules, but their emotional reaction enveloped and overrode their own guidelines. Just because you’ve been able to outline ways to play that upset you, that’s not proof that there aren’t additional ways to achieve the same result.
    Social interaction isn’t math, and you can’t expect it to be. 1+1 doesn’t always =2, and sometimes that sucks. But that’s what allows human communication to infinitely grow and become so nuanced. Instead of getting so defensive that you lash out at a Twitter joke, learn how to navigate the sea of communication more proficiently.
    Now I’m not saying you’re bad at communicating, because we’re all bad at it (and quite the contrary, you’re a very concise and clear writer). But you’re always going to be thrust into these nebulous situations and you can’t expect perfectly laid out rules to be there. Communicating more effectively is one of those “lifetime growth” things, and it’s annoying to know I’ll never perfect it.
    The real crazy part is, sometimes you’re you’re absolutely right: Nath+Myojin is totally rad [the first couple times]! And if some players react poorly to that, they have their own group communication issues to work on as well. The issue is not just you; it’s all of us. I’m just as guilty of overreacting to something I feel makes the Magic “un-fun” as you are of making it that way.
    “Douchebaggery” pervades on both sides of the fun scale. The best you can hope to do is find a playgroup that suites your needs, then try to strike a balance so that everyone can have a good time. If that requires you to only play with groups that have pre-established rules, so be it. But don’t blame others for not doing the same, and don’t be surprised if sometimes you still wind up playing the role of the “douche bag”.
    Don’t worry, we’re all douche bags at some point or another.
    (I hope this post wasn’t condescending or anything like that. It’s not meant to be, but then again, I’m pretty terrible at communicating sometimes.)
    Have a good day,
    -Marc Calderaro-

  20. I randomly browse blogs on the internet, and I find your article to be very informational. I’ve already bookmark it on my browser, so that I can view your blog submit once more later. Additionally, I am wondering whether or not your weblog is open for hyperlink change, as I really wish to exchange hyperlinks with you. I don’t usually do this, but I hope that we will have a mutual link exchange. Let me know and have an important day!

  21. My rule: If it drastically slows down the game or keeps people from feeling they are playing, it should be rare. It’s OK to play Obliterate, but you shouldn’t be tutoring for it. An infinite combo is alright, as long as that isn’t your main game plan. It’s ok to put one or two “Oops, I win.” combinations as long as you can do other things.
    Basically don’t design your deck in a manner that intends to make your opponents spectators.

Comments are closed.