Do you hate combo decks?

[robort]

Morgantor this is cute how you skirted around by not answering but lets quote you "The title of this thread is "Do you hate combo decks?" . You forgot the word AND to include "Do you hate combo decks? If so, why? If not, why?". I continually keep looking in your 1st initial response but it is nowhere to be seen. Is it encoded?


You had said that combo decks are a one-trick pony, and that is just not true. Yes so far it is true you have yet to show me one combo that does more than 1 trick. Just 1 and I would redact it to most combo decks are a one trick pony. So until then it is true and not untrue just because you say so. Hate to relieve you of this but "Your word" isn't the holy grail just because. Yeah yeah I know you will get last word in anyway. I will get a few more negative points because how dare I challenge the "word" coming from the holy grail.

There are so many things combo decks need to take into account. Building a new combo, So instead of 1 trick pony we get 2 so isn't that so special

making sure you're able to get all the pieces in the game, protecting the combo, and then having a backup plan in case it all goes wrong... This is the smoke and mirrors being used but still same trick of pulling the rabbit out of the hat. To visualize even more we could put the hat into a crate, nail the crate completely shut, blow the crate up, have hat land on top of magician's head after explosion, magician grabs hat off top of his head, reaches into hat, pulls rabbit out of hat.

it's a challenge. And that's not including that you also need answers to your opponents' things. It's a puzzle with 99 pieces and a commander. It is not just as easy as getting to your combo and winning. Winning isn't the point? However nowhere have I said it was or could be easy to get to your combo. I just called it a 1 trick pony remember??

 Or at least it shouldn't be, assuming you're in a fair matchup and the other players are packing interaction. Subjective word "fair" because that can mean differently to everyone, They can carry all the interactions they want but doesn't mean a thing when they don't understand variance, chance, percentages, luck, ev and I could go on. I personally don't need or use any of that anymore. How I do know how it works though was before playing Magic I played Hold-em for about 3-4 years. Studying, learning everything I could about that game, Played live and online, won me a few tournaments, very small bankroll but got out of it right around Black Friday. Some may know what I mean when I mention Black Friday (No it wasn't the sales for retail). I just have no desire to play anymore.

Try making a unique combo deck yourself, and then test it out. You'll see, homebrewing this stuff is not easy. I actually have 1 in Rith and while it isn't unique it was pretty easy. Basically Magic carries a lot of the same concepts Hold-em has and I just chose not to implement them so much, I also chose not to be the deuche bag I was when I played hold-em while also playing Magic.

The outcome.. You'll respond because well it is in your nature and you like getting last word in and the holy grail will stop anybody else from saying anything more. I do expect to get some negative karma, it is to be expected especially when one doesn't agree with the holy grail, So I will read responses but I won't respond from here on out. Enjoy the combos!!

[Slyvester12]

Yo, robort, are you okay? Why are you so militantly against how other people have fun? We get it, you don't like combos or counter spells or that blue exists in magic.

[Aetherium Slinky]

Morgantor this is cute how you skirted around by not answering but lets quote you "The title of this thread is "Do you hate combo decks?" . You forgot the word AND to include "Do you hate combo decks? If so, why? If not, why?". I continually keep looking in your 1st initial response but it is nowhere to be seen. Is it encoded?


You had said that combo decks are a one-trick pony, and that is just not true. Yes so far it is true you have yet to show me one combo that does more than 1 trick. Just 1 and I would redact it to most combo decks are a one trick pony. So until then it is true and not untrue just because you say so. Hate to relieve you of this but "Your word" isn't the holy grail just because. Yeah yeah I know you will get last word in anyway. I will get a few more negative points because how dare I challenge the "word" coming from the holy grail.

There are so many things combo decks need to take into account. Building a new combo, So instead of 1 trick pony we get 2 so isn't that so special

making sure you're able to get all the pieces in the game, protecting the combo, and then having a backup plan in case it all goes wrong... This is the smoke and mirrors being used but still same trick of pulling the rabbit out of the hat. To visualize even more we could put the hat into a crate, nail the crate completely shut, blow the crate up, have hat land on top of magician's head after explosion, magician grabs hat off top of his head, reaches into hat, pulls rabbit out of hat.

it's a challenge. And that's not including that you also need answers to your opponents' things. It's a puzzle with 99 pieces and a commander. It is not just as easy as getting to your combo and winning. Winning isn't the point? However nowhere have I said it was or could be easy to get to your combo. I just called it a 1 trick pony remember??

 Or at least it shouldn't be, assuming you're in a fair matchup and the other players are packing interaction. Subjective word "fair" because that can mean differently to everyone, They can carry all the interactions they want but doesn't mean a thing when they don't understand variance, chance, percentages, luck, ev and I could go on. I personally don't need or use any of that anymore. How I do know how it works though was before playing Magic I played Hold-em for about 3-4 years. Studying, learning everything I could about that game, Played live and online, won me a few tournaments, very small bankroll but got out of it right around Black Friday. Some may know what I mean when I mention Black Friday (No it wasn't the sales for retail). I just have no desire to play anymore.

Try making a unique combo deck yourself, and then test it out. You'll see, homebrewing this stuff is not easy. I actually have 1 in Rith and while it isn't unique it was pretty easy. Basically Magic carries a lot of the same concepts Hold-em has and I just chose not to implement them so much, I also chose not to be the deuche bag I was when I played hold-em while also playing Magic.

The outcome.. You'll respond because well it is in your nature and you like getting last word in and the holy grail will stop anybody else from saying anything more. I do expect to get some negative karma, it is to be expected especially when one doesn't agree with the holy grail, So I will read responses but I won't respond from here on out. Enjoy the combos!!

I don't think anyone is out there to get you... It's okay to have differing opinions. I don't get it why you're making this personal.

Calling a combo deck "one trick pony" is misleading. You make it sound like it's just a cheap trick, taking the easy way out. You say you never said anything about comboing off being easy. I get it. But repeatedly calling something a trick does make it sound cheap, doesn't it?

Besides by your definition almost all decks are one trick ponies, pulling animals out of hats. If you consider a combat deck all it does is one thing and one thing only: reduces life totals via combat. It's a one trick pony. A group hug deck has Approach of the Second Sun as its win condition. One trick pony. Most decks do only one thing but they do it really well. Sure, you can say that the combat deck might win one time with a Pathbreaker Ibex and some other time with a Craterhoof Behemoth. It's apparently not the same rabbit that's being pulled out of the hat every time.

How is the word "fair" subjective? I think it's the opposite of subjective in this case. In a four person pod you're expected to win 25% of the games. If this isn't true then the pod isn't balanced. It's all numbers, very objective.

Every Magic player doesn't have to be a statistician. I've had fun games with humanists, too. It's just all about expectations, knowing what you're up against and having that curse pregame talk. If someone doesn't know how a particular combo works you can explain it at this point or when it's about to come online.

Are you implying that playing combos is the same as being a douchebag?

[Morganator 2.0]

Was it not obvious that I like combos? Everyone else got that right?

I don't get why you need to get emotional over this. It's just a discussion, among people you will likely never meet, and who will have no influence over your life. You should be capable of holding an argument without descending into insults, or whatever that "holy grail" stuff is about. Take Mynus for instance, someone who is also arguing against a lot of the points I'm making, but is doing so using logic and reasoning. That is the way it's done.

Most disappointing of all is that this isn't an isolated incident. You must know it looks bad when you throw a temper tantrum like this. Why you insist on behaving this way is beyond me.

[Akira Foxmind]

Now, to get this thread back onto the road...

I'm fine with playing (against) combo decks and I like them for the creativity you can spent into creating new ones. It happens very often that I instantly try to build combo's when I see new cards - if there is any combo potential, of course. Not to mention that most of the results won't work too well. Sometimes I end up comboing 5, 6 or even more cards until it finally works, which makes it more or less unplayable.
Though it feels a little... thrilling to play against them since you never know whether you get another turn.

For me the power of a combo deck comes from the shell the combo is build in: having a Pact of Negation on the right spot to protect your combo turn is so much worth than, needing 3 extra mana for a Cancel. Same goes for tutorspells. But, as well, it's a matter of the amount of strong shell-pieces. One single Demonic Tutor alongside Cancel and other common cards won't make a huge difference.

Conclusion:
Combos are a nice part of the game.

[anjinsan]

bearing in mind there may be pump spells, combat tricks, haste

But these don't come out of nowhere for you? For me they do. To me they're "one card combos" basically because it's a single card that pivots the entire game to that player's advantage and most likely victory.

Yeah they absolutely do, and frankly I agree that's it's a bit weird to hate combos but not, say, Craterhoof Behemoth. In a way a Craterhoof or a big pump spell is a combo win (just not an infinite/arbitrarily-large one) with a few creatures on board.

However, most pump spells don't do that much. I can eyeball each person's board state and cards in hand and think, OK, that person is behind, that person is ahead, whatever, then on someone's next turn they can drop a load of stuff and the apparent state can swing quite dramatically. The ideal "swinginess" of a game is up for debate and highly subjective; a swingier game can be more fun, as different people get to be "ahead" at different times, you never know what's coming, etc. On the other hand it can feel too unpredictable and possibly less skilful. Combo wins feel almost like the far extreme of that (within the parameters allowed by Magic) - you can go from having very little to immediately flat-out winning.

There's an addendum here which is system mastery. If someone drops a Grindstone, a player with a high skill level but low knowledge level might look at that and go, eh, that's pretty useless. Then they drop a Painter's Servant and it's game over.

I think this is why a pregame talk is hugely important. You make sure everyone understands what you're about to do and explain anything that might be unclear. If you're really nice you give a heads up when you're about to drop a combo piece and let them know what their best window of interaction is. That's if someone doesn't know the combo you're running. I agree with you that playing Magic shouldn't be about knowing all 20 000 cards and their possible interactions.[/quote]Sure, but people don't do that, and there's nothing inherent in the game that says you have to give all your secrets away. If someone comes out and says "Hey, I'm playing XYZ combo deck, this is my exact gameplan" then that does change things... though it might also mean that the other players just murder them first so that they can't go off "unexpectedly" and win.

[robort]

Slyvester12,

I am good as usuall I am by no means against anybody having fun. Ask my playgroups and they'll tell you the same thing I am going to. I encourage people to play whatever they want and I'll play against it. If it is within the rules of the game then go ahead and play whatever. That doesn't mean I have to like it but I do accept it. For instance in a game last night I was playing. Pox was cast on turn 4 and with 0 rocks or hitting any ramp I had only 4 lands. I didn't like it but I accepted that it is part of the game.

MustaKotka,

You don't think anybody is out to get me? Then by all means explain my (Score: -4) (Score: -2) (Score: +1) (Score: -1) avg score just from this thread alone compared to everyone elses? Yet the -4 was enticed by me in theory and expectations of getting that.

The 1 trick pony can be said " of taking the easy way out." The path of least resistance is supposed to be easiest. Especially when that path leads to winning. It is also animal not animals hence only the rabbit. Most decks do something really well or is that most colors? Some decks are built more for the colors then they are for the commander. Combat might win one time with X card or Y card but that goes back to what I said with path of least resistance. Combat I think we can agree has more resistance comparatively to other styles,

How is the word "fair" subjective? That is actually easy, You ask anybody in the game what do you deem is fair? Everyone just won't have the exact same answer. You hit this nail right on the head "In a four person pod you're expected to win 25% of the games. If this isn't true then the pod isn't balanced. It's all numbers, very objective."  This is what is called expected value and this is before you even sit down at a table. Expected value is going to changed based upon every individual who sits down then. Mind set, Goals, Experience, and so forth will now change expected value. I won't go into the rest so yes it is very objective.

Are you implying that playing combos is the same as being a douchebag? Nope just turns me into a highly competitive jerk. Investing everything I can do just to get and stay on the path of least resistance is actually bad for me. That is why I just play the game for the sake of playing. I know I surprised my playgroups once during one of our leagues and an opponent kept coming after me, I raised my voice to where everyone heard me say "WTF you coming at me when this guy on the right of me has the most points in the league and is in 1st place! We are down near the bottom of the pile with points but you aren't even trying to slow down the one who is leading in points".

Every Magic player doesn't have to be a statistician No but you be surprised that some should be when it comes to the amount of lands they should or shouldn't have in a deck for starters.

Morgantor,

Yes finally got that you like combos by now but not previously. That holy grail stuff is based upon keen observation and analyzing things. It is just what I do best. If you think I am wrong just go back and see how many positive karma points you've gotten because some do lean on your every word. Or how some threads just stop after you make the last post. Now Compare that with everyone else's that normally posts and that doesn't happen as much as it happens to you.

Nope it isn't the 1st incident but again that comes from keen observation and analyzing things. I make mental notes on things based upon this observation. It isn't hard to realize when something starts turning into a pattern. There are few other patterns that also go unnoticed but it isn't my place to say so. Which now I will go back putting cards into my collection, creating new decks and just lurking (observing) threads in general, It is what I do.

LOL I can't wait to see what this does to my avg

[Akira Foxmind]

LOL I can't wait to see what this does to my avg

I hoped so much, that this - let's call it exhausting - ruckus would be over once and for all... The fact, that you came back with it anyway is a little childish in my honest oppinion. Like you need to have the last word no matter what.
Especially after you wrote that you would be out of it. Of course it is fine to come back after such a discussion... But not for starting the same old story again.

About your avg, don't you think it might be that people disagree with your oppinion and maybe even are annoyed from this aggressive behaviour?
At least that is the reason why you received exactly 1 downvote from me.

This will be the one and only time I reply to you about that, since I'm just not interested in such debates. So do with my post whatever you like.

[Mynus]

At the end the same two to three cards win the game, and when the goal of the deck is to exactly that, that's not magic I enjoy or want to play against.

What about everything that leads up to it? I mean the game is "random" up until the point that the combo is announced. (Also you mentioned high power combos only... What about low power ones? Are they any better?)

First, I am only talking about the infinite combos/wincon combos; I believe I stated that early on.

Combos are really fun, you want cards to do cool things together. However, I am not of fan of the "infinite" combo, when a deck is built around 2 cards to win, and it searches for that combo every time, that play-style is really boring and repetitive to me.

Second, yes the game is random, but at what point does that random begin to be less and less so? In these "combo" decks how many mulligans are taken to make sure you have starting hand that works, how many tutors are included, how many redundancies for parts of the combo are there? A good combo deck, by its nature, is designed to be the opposite of random; I believe the word "consistent" is often used to describe a well-oiled combo deck. All the ramp, card advantage, protection, removal that happen before the combo simply either accelerate the combo or delay others, again with the one goal in mind, winning with the combo.

I even have decks with "infinite" combos, it helps to have them to close a game, but they are not designed to get to that combo as fast as possible. I play very, very, very few tutors.

This leads to another topic:
Do I like to win? Yes, of course.
Do my decks have avenues to win? Yes, they do.
Do I build my decks with the purpose of winning? No, I build my decks to be fun, to use a cool theme/mechanic/strategy.
Do I pilot any deck I play to win the game? Yes

I believe there is a difference in playing to win and brewing to win. I believe combo decks do the latter, brew to win.

[Aetherium Slinky]

At the end the same two to three cards win the game, and when the goal of the deck is to exactly that, that's not magic I enjoy or want to play against.

What about everything that leads up to it? I mean the game is "random" up until the point that the combo is announced. (Also you mentioned high power combos only... What about low power ones? Are they any better?)

First, I am only talking about the infinite combos/wincon combos; I believe I stated that early on.

Combos are really fun, you want cards to do cool things together. However, I am not of fan of the "infinite" combo, when a deck is built around 2 cards to win, and it searches for that combo every time, that play-style is really boring and repetitive to me.

Second, yes the game is random, but at what point does that random begin to be less and less so? In these "combo" decks how many mulligans are taken to make sure you have starting hand that works, how many tutors are included, how many redundancies for parts of the combo are there? A good combo deck, by its nature, is designed to be the opposite of random; I believe the word "consistent" is often used to describe a well-oiled combo deck. All the ramp, card advantage, protection, removal that happen before the combo simply either accelerate the combo or delay others, again with the one goal in mind, winning with the combo.

I even have decks with "infinite" combos, it helps to have them to close a game, but they are not designed to get to that combo as fast as possible. I play very, very, very few tutors.

This leads to another topic:
Do I like to win? Yes, of course.
Do my decks have avenues to win? Yes, they do.
Do I build my decks with the purpose of winning? No, I build my decks to be fun, to use a cool theme/mechanic/strategy.
Do I pilot any deck I play to win the game? Yes

I believe there is a difference in playing to win and brewing to win. I believe combo decks do the latter, brew to win.

There are low power infinite combos. Ones that either take many cards to work, have multiple points of interaction or don't win the game despite going infinite. You stated early on that you don't like "infinite" combos that take two or three cards. You didn't address low power combos, really. What if the combo takes five cards to work? Or eight? What if you need to wait a full rotation for your combo to work so that even sorcery speed interaction can stop it? What if it's an infinite mana combo but you don't have anything specific to dump the mana into? (Akin to having an Omniscience on the table.)

I would say any decently powered deck is built to reduce randomness and for maximum consistency. Let's say we're considering an enchantress deck: there's always a draw engine, there's always a payoff engine and depending on the power level there are some tutors for both categories. That is also consistent due to redundancy and possible tutoring. Take Sythis, Harvest's Hand for example. You always have access to a draw engine and some pillowfort which makes the deck very consistent even if you don't go infinite with it. If you build it high power all parts of the deck contribute towards the game plan. The higher up the power ladder you go the fewer flavour cards there are in a deck.

You say this: "Do I build my decks with the purpose of winning? No, I build my decks to be fun, to use a cool theme/mechanic/strategy." Is it possible that you're not necessarily against combos, you just dislike playing highly optimised decks with next to no cool cards? People often assume combo means that the deck is necessarily high power as well but this isn't always the case. I have (infinite) combo decks that lose to precons, even. They might play a very flavourful combo with many movings parts and little protection which results in a weak deck.

Your very last summary also supports my theory: you say combo decks brew to win when this isn't universally true. I have an example here: https://deckstats.net/decks/93006/2345742-codie-plays-your-deck#show_description
This combo deck is very, very consistent in its combo and it executes it very early on - on turn 4 almost invariably. Yet the combo is weak. You essentially play other people's decks and assembling a winning board state one loaned permanent a turn is no easy task.

[Morganator 2.0]

It seems like so far we've all been referring to proactive combos with a single line. Things like Varolz Hulk or First Sliver Food Chain. Decks where every part of that deck is to either ensure that one combo happens, or to protect that one combo once it's in play. I'll admit that I've tried making decks like this, but took them apart because, well... I didn't find them fun.

But instead, what does everyone think of a layered combo deck? A deck where there are different combos for different situations, and the deck does not always win with the same line.

And what of disruptive decks where their primary goal is to interact with the other decks at the table and only use a combo as a finisher? Those decks, by their nature, cause lots of variety, and force opponents to work around the disruption.

Lastly, what does everyone think of midrange decks; decks that can choose to win with either combat damage or a combo? Sometimes both in cases where they take out a player or two with combat, and then finish the game with a combo. Certainly that must be more unique than a deck that always wins with combat or always wins with a combo?

[Aetherium Slinky]

It seems like so far we've all been referring to proactive combos with a single line. Things like Varolz Hulk or First Sliver Food Chain. Decks where every part of that deck is to either ensure that one combo happens, or to protect that one combo once it's in play. I'll admit that I've tried making decks like this, but took them apart because, well... I didn't find them fun.

But instead, what does everyone think of a layered combo deck? A deck where there are different combos for different situations, and the deck does not always win with the same line.

And what of disruptive decks where their primary goal is to interact with the other decks at the table and only use a combo as a finisher? Those decks, by their nature, cause lots of variety, and force opponents to work around the disruption.

Lastly, what does everyone think of midrange decks; decks that can choose to win with either combat damage or a combo? Sometimes both in cases where they take out a player or two with combat, and then finish the game with a combo. Certainly that must be more unique than a deck that always wins with combat or always wins with a combo?

The love of my life Merieke Ri Berit untap combo deck is a layered combo deck. It has three distinct combo lines that can be used depending on the situation. Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal is obviously the fastest combo in the deck if it looks like I've got a good opening or the table is out of interaction. However if there's a Collector Ouphe on the table I go for an untapper + Pemmin's Aura + Lotus Field. Doesn't care about stax / hate bears very much. Middle of the road option is Illusionist's Bracers which is relatively easy to assemble because there are lots of untappers in the deck and I basically only need to tutor for one card (Bracers). There are even three outlets: Blue Sun's Zenith, Codex Shredder and a deck looping combo. Lots of options! I think it's great because no game is ever the same and the deck is resilient because it can work around all kinds of disruption.

By disruption I assume you mean hatebears, stax, counterspells and removal spells? I think it's a great way to interact with the table. For a long time I've held the opinion that stax is one of the most interactive archetypes in EDH because it forces your opponents to react. It's a puzzle to be solved and thus makes for some very interesting back and forth games. A stax deck usually breaks parity and gets to play somewhat unhindered but there are no synergistic win conditions available, really. It makes sense to close the game with a combo and I don't mind at all. It's clean, it's efficient and the meat part of the game was when the stax pieces starter raining. Some hatebears can go for a Craterhoof Behemoth but as we've discussed it's not a pure value piece, often times it's a one-card win condition. Not a combo per se but plays very similarly (ends the game immediately).

Having options is really cool and that is exactly what I like about EDH. If you can pick either combo or combat it's super exciting because you can tailor your game plan according to the game state. A bit like the Merieke Ri Berit example where I can pick a line depending on the conditions. It's important to note that there are three winning states:

• Reduce someone's life total to 0.
• Have someone draw from an empty deck.
• Alternative win conditions printed on the card.

Combat is the most obvious way to reduce life totals but sometimes combos do it too. Having someone draw from an empty deck is most often seen in combo decks but some dedicated mill decks can do this too without the help of a combo. Alternative win conditions are mostly seen in decks that have them either as a backup or don't have very good combat related plans to begin with. If you can freely choose between one of these three I think you've got a deck that rarely plays non-games where the deck would be unable to contribute to the game in any manner. So that's a positive thing in my mind.

[Mynus]

There are low power infinite combos. Ones that either take many cards to work, have multiple points of interaction or don't win the game despite going infinite. You stated early on that you don't like "infinite" combos that take two or three cards. You didn't address low power combos, really. What if the combo takes five cards to work? Or eight? What if you need to wait a full rotation for your combo to work so that even sorcery speed interaction can stop it? What if it's an infinite mana combo but you don't have anything specific to dump the mana into? (Akin to having an Omniscience on the table.)

You say this: "Do I build my decks with the purpose of winning? No, I build my decks to be fun, to use a cool theme/mechanic/strategy." Is it possible that you're not necessarily against combos, you just dislike playing highly optimised decks with next to no cool cards? People often assume combo means that the deck is necessarily high power as well but this isn't always the case. I have (infinite) combo decks that lose to precons, even. They might play a very flavourful combo with many movings parts and little protection which results in a weak deck.

Yeah, you probably have a point here. A combo that takes that many pieces doesn't feel the same as the 2 card combo. A combo that takes 5-6 pieces can't be completed with one tutor. As I said a few posts ago, I think I am really more against the tutor aspect of the optimized combo deck than the actual combo itself.

As far as playing against optimized, yeah, I would say I like to play in a more casual setting. The power level of my playgroup has slowly creeped up, and it can be frustrating at times, but not every game is like that. I am not, nor do I want to be, a cEDH player. I would argue my decks are focused without being optimized, I think I would have one deck that I would call optimized, but it is not powerful, it is designed to do a thing, and does that thing very well, but it till not win out of no where or even super early.

This comes back to my ultimate goal when playing. I play commander for the inherent social aspect, do I try to win, ofcourse, but I am not tech-ing  my decks for the sole purpose of winning. Which means I typically don't pick generally "good" commanders like Sythis, I typically look for commanders with cool mechanics.

[robort]

I like those questions Morgantor and I want to answer them as subjectively as I can.

A layered combo I would gather a guess that it would be harder to pilot and navigate with so many different lines. It does open the door for options of what you want to do. It makes it seem likely you would have to pick a correct option or line. The outcome then has consequences for choosing the right or even wrong option.

A disruption deck with a combo? I am also going to gather a guess here as well. I would say is how much disruption is being used and how powerful is the disruption. Is the disruption aimed towards a specific type of deck or all types of decks? I would guess that how much annoyance the disruption is doing to get to it's combo.

Midrange decks that win with combat and/or combo? Another guess as well but this type seems easier to pilot then the previous 2. Get creatures out and swing and/or combo off. These type of decks can be at the most part the easiest to disrupt.

Those are my guesses. They aren't meant to be right nor wrong.

[WWolfe]

My decks almost all include combos so I don’t hate them. My only problem with them is when you stop them and the opponent has built the deck so securely on winning that one way with nothing else but control, and they then cannot win while only slowing down the game for everyone else.

If you’re going to build a straight combo deck, build more than one win con into it.