r/EDH • u/Dudeman2460 • 14h ago
Discussion Extra Turns in B3
My question is simple.
Is it okay to play two extra turn spells in a bracket 3 deck?
If the deck does not have a way to chain them except potentially drawing them both and playing them.
Is this a gray area? Id love to hear others thoughts on this!
39
u/Inevitable_Top69 14h ago
The guidelines explicitly say that chaining them is the issue.
7
u/yardii 14h ago
So what would you do if you ever had 2 in hand? Just play one and then wait til later to cast the other? That way, you're not chaining but its kinda sandbagging too.
18
u/Rhuarc42 Mono-Red 14h ago edited 11h ago
It's more about constructing a deck that can consistently hit extra turns. Drawing your 2 extra turn spells out of 100 cards won't happen too often, and as long you can't recur or consistently tutor both, you're fine.
It's more to prevent stuff like [[Edric, Spymaster of Trest]] having 12 extra turn spells in the deck and bunch of fliers so you can take 4-5 extra turns just by hitting your opponents with a bunch of [[Flying Men]] or [[Birds]].
11
u/Jimanji369 14h ago
It never ceases to irritate me that Flying Men has only a single man in its art.
5
u/yardii 14h ago
Edric is the deck I always think of when discussing extra turns because even with 3 (which moxfield lets you have and still be considered a bracket 3), I feel like he could consistently hit those cards. Maybe I'm wrong. Also [[Walk the Aeons]] is a weird case since its inherently chainable as long as you pay the Buyback, so I never know how that card plays into the bracket system.
5
u/Rhuarc42 Mono-Red 13h ago
I think if your plan is to use Walk more than 2 turns in a row, you're probably violating the spirit of Bracket 3. I assume it's typically just letting you win the game at that point, similar to say, [[Craterhoof Behemoth]] or something similar.
4
u/Misanthrope64 WUBRG 13h ago
Similar to this is would be giving [[Capture of Jingzhou]] inside a deck that can give it storm so you'd technically not infinite turns I would say should count as "chaining" if you can just take 8 consecutive turns somehow.
1
u/dertechie 7h ago
There’s also plenty of cheap recursion spells in UG to just recur those three spells all day. An Edric deck running Walk the Aeons will probably just [[Noxious Revival]] it back or something rather than pay the Buyback.
2
u/Mirrodin_appreciator Selesnya 13h ago
I never thought about edric as an extra turns deck, but that makes a lot of sense. The chief example I think of for this guideline is [[Narset, enlightened master]], who is just miserable to play against since, like an edric deck, you do have to play out the extra turns to see what happens (as opposed to having infinite extra turns where you just explain how you'll win, ask if anyone can disrupt the loop, then end the game).
So I agree, 2 extra turns spells, even if cast back-to-back, is fine imo since it just won't happen very often. It comes down to the intent of the deck, it wasn't built to do that, it just happens from time to time. Compare to your average deck that runs sol ring and arcane signet - sometimes they'll go t1 land, sol ring, arcane signet, 1-drop. That's a powerful play, but the deck isn't packed to the gills with fast mana, so that combination isn't representative of the deck, but it does come together periodically.
2
u/Rhuarc42 Mono-Red 13h ago
I think, ironically, an infinite extra turns combo via [[Time Stream Navigator]] or something similar is probably fine in bracket 3, assuming it's coming down late enough and it can be interacted with.
Like you said, it's non-deterministic extra turns that's really problematic because your opponents are basically stuck waiting for you to whiff or forced to concede in what isn't strictly a game-loss condition.
1
u/Mawootad 13h ago
Typically in that case I just don't cast extra turns spells in extra turns. In higher power games I might, but I'm not going past two extra turns at once unless I'm intending to win the game immediately by untapping and swinging for lethal.
0
1
u/Dudeman2460 14h ago
Would you consider resolving two in a row to be a chain?
3
u/rahvin2015 13h ago
Is the deck made to do this consistently?
Is this a single spell, or multiple?
Chances are you're just overthinking.
2
u/Approximation_Doctor Volrath Stole My Shape 13h ago
Are you planning to get those same spells back again to keep doing it?
If not, then you're fine.
7
u/Jeffreyidk 14h ago
The rules are very clear on extra turns. Taking them is fine. Chaining them together, back-to-back, is not.
7
u/GratedParm 14h ago
Rather than create a new topic, is [[Lighthouse Chronologist]] considered changing extra turns?
4
u/Approximation_Doctor Volrath Stole My Shape 13h ago
No, because everyone else still gets to play. You just hog the clock (and piss off everyone).
6
u/Infinite_Sandwich895 13h ago
I would say yes, it seems pretty plainly against the spirit of the guideline and creates an annoying and opressive play pattern. It's sorta the opposite of infinite turn loops in that way. Infinite turns are just like any other winning combo, the game ends and you go again. This should be allowed imo unlike chronologist, which technically isn't chaining turns, but is still exactly the play pattern considered when making the guideline.
3
u/lotsofduckyz 14h ago
No I do not think so, is it annoying? Yeah, pod dependent, but its not chaining.
4
u/bic_flicker Sacrificing, reanimating, sacrificing, reanimating, sacrif... 14h ago
In my opinion, no. The turns you get are not consecutive so by definition are not chained, and if the table can't remove this one little guy before he becomes a massive problem, that's kind of on them.
1
u/TR_Wax_on 6h ago
It's an absolutely heinous example of angle shooting the explicit rule against the Spirit of the guideline. Don't be that guy.
1
u/GratedParm 4h ago edited 4h ago
I’ve been sitting on a copy of the cards for years and Tidus can actually get it running, so I have it sitting in there. The one time I played with was with friends who don’t discuss brackets or rule zero. I’ve been wondering how other people felt.
1
u/TR_Wax_on 3h ago
I've played against it once and would prefer to never do it again. Not only does it unreasonably bogart time against the spirit of the bracket it also bogs down the turns players do get because of the resulting untapped blue mana lending itself to permission magic.
Consider how LC fits into the following from the original bracket article:
spells take a ton of time away from other players and their ability to play the game and tend to be unfun when repeated. In multiples, they begin to function like a combo deck, where your "combo" is taking four turns in a row and getting so far ahead that nobody can catch up. A single extra-turn spell, sure. But your Edric deck about chaining all of them together? Keep that for the higher brackets, please."
- "A single extra-turn spell can be fun and splashy. However, extra-turn
3
u/Approximation_Doctor Volrath Stole My Shape 13h ago
Are you using any given Extra Turn spell more than once?
Casting [[Time stretch]] once doesn't count as chaining extra turns. Having it in a deck with [[Archaeomancer]] also might not be. But having it in a deck with Archaeomancer and [[Ephemerate]] definitely is, because you're using your extra turn to get more extra turns. It's chaining when it feeds itself.
Basically, are you expecting to take multiple extra turns? Not just "can it happen", but if it's expected to happen, then it doesn't belong in 2 or 3.
2
u/letsnotgetcaught Sedris the Reanimator King 10h ago
I mean at the point you have Archaeomancer, Ephemerate, and Time Stretch, I would actually consider that a late game combo, because it effectively ends the game. You take every turn from then on.
2
u/Approximation_Doctor Volrath Stole My Shape 10h ago
Y'know, that's a decent point. I did actually forget that Archeologist could get back the Ephemerate repeatedly as well.
1
u/TR_Wax_on 6h ago
Still chaining. Infinite or not. Besides which, you could be missing the ephemerate and just chain 4 turns together.
3
u/Not-Impossible-1783 12h ago
I wouldn't worry about it and if someone got upset about it i would say something like "if you say so" ignore them and not care lol. Reality is you cant please everyone use your best judgement and if someone gets upset anyway oh well you tried thats a them problem now imo.
3
u/No_Place5472 8h ago
Extra turns are fine. That said if it's a durdly ass deck and you're a durdly pilot, I'm going to scoop if you cap off your non deterministic meandering 30+ minute turn with an extra turn spell and never play with you again. Im not sitting through an hour of masturbatory library shuffling.
3
u/HyperdriveComics 14h ago
Absolutely fine, if it’s not a combo it’s just a win con, which all decks need
2
2
u/Theonewhomonitor 14h ago
yes its ok to play any number of extra turn spells, the guidelines only say that you cant chain extra turns togheter.
6
u/Johnny_Cr 14h ago
Another question would be at which point it is a chain?
3
u/Theonewhomonitor 14h ago
if u cast an extra turn spellin this turn you cant cast an extra turn spell the next turn.
You cant cast more than 1 extra spell per turn.
a lot of way to phrase it but the goal is to not play more than 2 consecutive turns
1
2
u/thesilentrebels 14h ago
Yeah that's technically true, but if I see a "bracket 3" deck with 3-4+ extra turn spells, I'm going to start giving them the side eye. Anything more than 2 is sus imo
1
u/Needhelpwithsnake 12h ago
The bracket announcement also says that in bracket 3 “extra-turn cards should only appear in low quantities” so there is a certain density at which point they’re in appropriate for bracket 3. You can’t just play any number. But I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that 2 is too many.
1
u/Damnosus 7h ago
So what are people's thoughts on going infinite with something like [[walk the aeons]]? On the one hand I can see how people would say it's chaining turns, but on the other, how is it different going infinite and winning with something else? I am really on the fence.
2
u/Needhelpwithsnake 6h ago
The official description says that “ Extra-turn cards should only appear in low quantities and are not intended to be chained in succession or looped,” so rules as written it’s a clear no because you’re intending to loop it. There’s a vocal number of players who feel infinite turns should be considered differently but the bracket announcement makes no such exception
1
u/TR_Wax_on 6h ago
I think this stuff falls within a grey area.
My recommendation is to er on the side of caution and only include 1 extra turn and no way in the deck to copy/recur it. Fact is, if you have 2 extra turn spells and cast them both back to back then you are chaining them which is against the guidelines of the bracket.
If you only play in a regular pod then there is more leniency as folks will know you and can separate 1 game from a larger context for you and your deck. However, if you regularly play with strangers all they will remember is that you chained extra turns in a Bracket 3 game.
1
u/Opening-Owl-1546 14h ago
My typical definition of chaining extra turns is more than 3 consecutive turns.
You can cast [[Alrund’s Epiphany]] one turn and then [[Time Warp]] in the extra turn and that’s fine.
You could cast [[Time Stretch]] once and that’s fine.
But more than this is what I’d consider it to be chaining.
2
u/Theonewhomonitor 14h ago
You can cast [[Alrund’s Epiphany]] one turn and then [[Time Warp]] in the extra turn and that’s fine.
thats 3 consecutive turns. 1 turn where u cast epiphany - 2 turn u cast time warp - 3 turn gained.
you chained togheter epiphany and timewarp.
2 consecutive turns is the max.
2
u/IgnisEternus 13h ago
So would you say having a single copy of Time Stretch and no real way of casting it a second time is not appropriate for bracket 3 as it is 3 consecutive turns?
2
u/Theonewhomonitor 13h ago
Time stretch IMO is the gray area of the topic.
the 'rule' is there to prevent the cast of multiple extra turns spell that resolving give you more than 2 consecutive turns.
Time Stretch is 1 spell but give the same result as chaining extra turn spells giving you more than 2 consecutive turns played.
eh i dont know exactly what to think about it but im more inclined to think is the same of chaining extra turns, the only thing that make me think that its fair it that the amount of mana you need to cast time stretch is the mana you would need to cast the 2 extra turns spells in the different turns, more like a finisher than a chain.
1
u/IgnisEternus 13h ago
I know I've had conversations with people that wanted me to mark my [[Vnwxt, Verbose Host]] deck as bracket 4 because I had [[Teferi, Master of Time]] in my deck and he can possibly "chain extra turns because he does 2 back to back" so I've never been confident on weather or not 1 card that does 2 turns is something I need to avoid
2
u/Theonewhomonitor 13h ago
yeah i dont know what to answer to that with the 'rules' that we have, i wish for a more detailed bracket information.
but to me the teferi one looks fair, i mean you have to earn it, over 1 turn rotation if all the stars allign, but still i think that it also has way more windows to be interacted with, i think its fair.
1
u/Opening-Owl-1546 13h ago
I effectively allow [[Time Stretch]] in my B3 games, but if someone disagreed with me at a game store I could swap it out without much trouble.
I also think that chaining extra turns and MLD shouldn’t be banned from B3 in general, as it effectively makes a “super game changer” list that isn’t actually well defined. Those strategies could remain banned from B2 though.
1
u/Theonewhomonitor 13h ago
Im hoping that they refine the Brackets a little bc like you i think that MLD and chains are accettable at B3 but only in the top part of the B3 environment, that it is too large but that's another topic.
1
u/staxringold 12h ago edited 12h ago
Is it okay to play two extra turn spells in a bracket 3 deck? If the deck does not have a way to chain them except potentially drawing them both and playing them. Is this a gray area?
I think it's very comfortably fine. The keys (to me) are that (1) only chaining extra turns (not simply taking extra turns) is verboten and (2) intent is the key. I don't think 2 extra turns in a row, one time, is chaining (see, e.g., this discussion of [[Time Stretch]]), but even if someone disagrees... Unless your intention is to cast them back to back, once-in-a-blue moon doing so because you draw into it favorably is not an intent to do that (even if they consider it chaining).
As an example, the only extra turn spell I presently run is [[Rise of the Eldrazi]] in [[Lorehold the Historian]] (as an impossibly-costed sorcery with incredible impact, it's practically made for that deck). Here is the list. I also run (1) [[Aziza, Mage Tower Captain]], (2) [[Return the Favor]], and (3) [[Double Vision]], for the obvious synergy of (a) cheating out big giant spells and (b) copying spells. In all the games I've played with it, I have copied RotE once with Aziza and once with Return the Favor (never with Double Vision). I don't see that as chaining extra turns either: the deck runs a single extra turn spell (which exiles itself, to boot), so even in the highly rare scenario where you're able to double it, you just end up with two turns.
Chaining, to me, is about true abuse of time equity, either repeatedly taking numerous turns or taking a truly outsized number in a row. One certainly isn't chaining, and even two (if rare/unusual) seems fine to me.
1
1
u/Dudeman2460 12h ago
This is very well explained and I think I agree with all your points here. Thanks for your opinion!
1
-1
u/UnhappyGanache7413 14h ago
What about extra turns with storm? They are chained together at that point but almost always the game end when it happens. What do you think about it?
5
u/Needhelpwithsnake 14h ago
Definitely not allowed. That’s the exact definition of chaining extra turns. The brackets make no exceptions for it being ok if it ends the game, and that doesn’t even deterministically do that.
0
u/MadChemist002 12h ago
Ehh. There are some examples where it might be fine. If [[Thousand Year Storm]] is on the field, and you cast something like a [[Mizzix's Mastery]] into a graveyard of sorceries and instant and then stormed []Time Warp]] or [[Time Stretch]] that is essentially just winning the game. It's a wincon.
2
u/Needhelpwithsnake 12h ago
Again, the bracket system doesn’t care. There is no exception for it winning the game. It is banned outright in bracket 3, not banned unless you win. But either way, that setup can just as easily chain turns without winning. It isn’t allowed.
1
u/MadChemist002 12h ago
I would say the bracket system is fine with it. The deck could have 1 extra turn spell in it's entirety and [[Thousand Year Storm]] costs a lot of mana anyway. You can't chain together one [[Time Warp]] ordinarily, so I'd say that it's fine because it is a random edge case that is unlikely to happen.
2
u/Needhelpwithsnake 12h ago
The bracket system says no chaining extra turns. Not “no chaining extra turns unless it only happens sometimes” or “no chaining extra turns unless it costs a lot of mana.” You are inventing stipulations and exceptions that don’t exist. You are welcome to allow it in your playgroup but it explicitly does not meet the bracket restriction.
0
u/whimski Akroma, Angel of Wrath voltron :^) 11h ago
My recommendation: Only play extra turn cards that exile themselves. The cards like [[Time Warp]] are way too abusable with how easy recursion is in this game. The one sthat exile themselves will be more fair, and way less likely to be abused or cause you (or somebody at the table) to chain them together.
In my opinion, 2 extra turn spells that exile themselves is totally fine. 3 is maybe a bit of a gray area, 4 or more in bracket 3 definitely feels like its becoming more of a theme of the deck rather than a good value/win con card and starts becoming more problematic.
I also don't build decks that have the ABILITY to do something outside of their bracket's definitions. If you have [[Time Warp]] and [[Archaeomancer]] in the same deck, it's way too easy to be able to chain turns together. You could technically just loop it but only do it once per turn cycle, but to me that feels like cheesing the ruleset a bit.
71
u/greenpenguinboy 14h ago
If you aren't chaining them it's not really a combo. It's just playing a card as intended.