Expressive IterationExpressive Iteration | Art by Anastasia Ovchinnikova

It always starts with some kind of ritual spell. It might look different in every deck. Maybe It's a Dark RitualDark Ritual in a Prosper, Tome-BoundProsper, Tome-Bound deck or a Mana GeyserMana Geyser in a Magnus the RedMagnus the Red deck.

My most common spell to start off a non-deterministic long turn is a Vision SkeinsVision Skeins in my Heliod, the Radiant DawnHeliod, the Radiant Dawn deck. It puts two cards in my hand and reduces all my spells by six for that turn. Between what's in my hand and what I draw, I have to try to win or I've blown the best card in my deck.

My partner hates my Heliod deck. I mean, he will audibly groan and beg me not to play it. My Prosper, Tome-BoundProsper, Tome-Bound deck also takes long non-deterministic turns; a lot of players hate that deck as well. This way of play is not well liked.

As a player who sort of seeks out this line of play, I became pretty fascinated with this concept and decided to dig a little into it. Is something wrong with this playstyle?

Non-Deterministic or Combo Strategies

There is one distinction I'd like to clear up before we get into whether you're a stinky person for playing a non-deterministic deck: the difference between non-deterministic decks and combo decks.

Thrumming StoneThrumming Stone with 24-30 Rat ColonyRat Colonys is enough to hit your goal. This is more of a line than what I would consider non-deterministic even though it feels a bit non-deterministic. The line I want to draw in the sand here is likelihood. The more it's digging and looking and hoping and praying to see the thing you want the more it's non-deterministic and less combo.

The line is a little blurry because Commander is a singleton format with 99 cards in the deck. Unless you draw your tutors in your opening hand, you're running on luck, which can feel like hoping and praying in that non-deterministic way. I'm not trying to boil the ocean about the language about combo and non-deterministic; I just want to make one distinction about combo.

Combo decks are looking for specific cards that lead to other specific cards - tutors that lead into specific pieces that lead into specific lines. There are many avenues to the same things. Redundancies. Easier roads than others, but backup plans for interaction. This is a little different from non-deterministic decks that might be looking for an uncertain way to maybe win if they can figure something out.

It's less calculated creativity and more strategic. Less Jackson Pollock and more Chess.

Last bit about this: the non-deterministic turn player doesn't necessarily have win in sight. It is looking for a win. It is digging into it's deck for a possibility for a win. Decks that surround this mechanic usually need to amass value through digging. It's Light Up the StageLight Up the Stage for it's Spectacle cost for a Prosper deck to see a couple more cards; make some treasures along the way, ping with Reckless FireweaverReckless Fireweaver; exile a card with Ob Nixilis, Captive KingpinOb Nixilis, Captive Kingpin, and maybe cast something there for a treasure to dig a bit more.

It's the "maybe something" that makes it non-deterministic. It might just end your turn. It might keep going. It might win.

Decks Versus Turns

Another thing I want to clear up is having a non-deterministic turn is a little different from having a non-deterministic turn deck. I think if any player is building an efficient deck they want card draw and mana acceleration. You wrap those two things together and you get more of those two things. More game actions will happen, and if it's a pretty synergistic deck, more game actions means more ramp and more card draw.

Do you see what I'm getting at? It makes for a fairly long, non-deterministic turn, looking for a way to close it out. With enough cards in hand and enough mana, you must find a way to win. At least that's the thinking as you cast spells, draw cards, and try to figure it out.

Big explosive turns without endless tutors - less combo-y decks - are going to have this effect: the non-deterministic and long effect. So, I hesitate to demonize these game actions. If we all might have to do it to win with enough mana and cards in hand, at some point in our player history, what's the harm? At least that's my reasoning.

If you take a long turn and don't win, at least you went for it. It's a little different if your deck is trying to do it every turn, or it's the conceit of the deck. Being unable to win unless you do have a non-deterministic turn is a little different from the perfect storm - no pun intended - leading to a turn like that.

I think there is an argument here to say that long non-deterministic turn decks might be harmful if a singular long non-deterministic turn occasionally in a deck is fine.

The Glory of a Long Non-Deterministic Turn

I know, I'm biased, but I want you to understand it my way first. Before we tear it apart, I want you to know what I love so much about these long non-deterministic strategies.

When I first started playing Magic: The Gathering, I hated combat. I didn't know when to attack. It was complicated because it left you open to crack back most times. I didn't learn until much later how bad attacking really is. (I promise this has something to do with non-deterministic turns.) Blocking is so much better. You get more decisions on how damage is distributed. What is lost or taken is your decisions when you block.

Evasion became something I was obsessed with. I played things with skulk, shadow, and flying. Dragons and Angels. Lots of flying. I got to choose when the damage happened because I could avoid blocking all together. Imagine my surprise when I learned about Burn strategies. I was obsessed for months. I built Solphim, Mayhem DominusSolphim, Mayhem Dominus, Auntie Blyte, Bad InfluenceAuntie Blyte, Bad Influence, and Firesong and SunspeakerFiresong and Sunspeaker.

My Prosper, Tome-BoundProsper, Tome-Bound deck is a Spellslinger, Treasures, and Ping Damage deck. It's the direct damage that I'd wanted from Magic all along. I wanted to avoid all the nuance of combat and get to the source: life totals. I will tell you that building up enough damage to deal 40 to each player with Treasures - in Rakdos with zero tutors - is about a lot of creativity.

I have to sequence carefully. I have to think about how each of my triggers work together. It was and still is beautiful. Reckless ImpulseReckless Impulse-ing into a land and Wrenn's ResolveWrenn's Resolve-ing into more mana and more cards is so fun. The storm count is up. And I run Aetherflux ReservoirAetherflux Reservoir. If I have a couple more spells with Aetherflux out I could eliminate a player. With a Bolas's CitadelBolas's Citadel, it could be a wrap.

It's about being creative and playing every card in your deck. It's the thrill of seeing what else you can do to keep pushing your deck to give you more. It's sort of like a puzzle that you get to wrangle in real time, with interaction from everyone else. It's like you're fighting your deck and your opponents.

Not knowing what will happen is part of what I love about it. It's like gambling on your deckbuilding technique, your luck, and your strategy.

What else can I say other than, it can be really, really fun?

The Big Drawbacks of Long Non-Deterministic Turns

I was playing my Heliod, the Radiant DawnHeliod, the Radiant Dawn deck and my partner tapped me on the shoulder midway through a sequencing hellscape and said that he hadn't taken a turn in 40 minutes. This is not an exaggeration. I'd accidentally given another player two extra turns. I'd meant to give to myself, but thanks a lot Avatar: The Last Airbender for Redirect LightningRedirect Lightning.

I'd discounted spells by drawing the table collectively 100 cards and I hadn't found the win yet. I thought an extra two turns might give me two more lands and two more draws. Anyway, it didn't work out.

Time

I won that game, but it took a lot digging and getting creative. That took a lot of time. A lot of me time. Commander is a game that should allow everyone to get an opportunity to play. Taking up a large portion of the game can be agonizing, especially when you typically have to wait for three players to take their turn for you to get one.

Think time for players is relevant when talking about how much time non-deterministic turns take up. Not every moment will be taking the precise game action. You'll be "in the tank" (coming from the term "thinktank" meaning to think about what game action to take) for a while for complicated, nuanced, and important sequencing. Sometimes time is taken up too by resolving triggers: shuffling, looking, reading, and drawing.

And you just have to watch. You can't be on your phone or something. What you if you have an interaction point? What if you have disruption and you're waiting for your nuanced moment to do something? It can and will be mind numbing. And then they, the long turn player, might just whiff. All that work and they might not even win? Some would say that is even more frustrating.

This is a sentiment I don't really understand entirely. Are we supposed to be more upset that they spent all that time and didn't win? I still have an opportunity to win. Shouldn't I be glad that all that time led to a lack of win and an overextending of resources? Should we want them to win because they durdled with their deck more?

They wasted my time, yes, but I can still win; isn't that good? It seems confusing to me, but part of me gets it. Maybe we want some closure to all the time sitting and waiting. We want it to mean something, be worth all the time invested. I didn't want them to waste our time and lose.

Sunk Cost

Piggy backing off of the potentiality of not finding the win is the overinvestment. Long non-deterministic turns are usually prolonged by somewhat reckless overextending of resources: sac'ing Treasures or lands, discarding or exiling cards, and even sac'ing creatures to cost. You keep pushing so much that if you don't find it, you're just completely out of the game if you have to pass.

You've given away all of your advantage looking and digging that you can't recover.

This sunken cost fallacy pressures players with these kinds of decks to be all-in, which can make for very chaotic play experiences. Knowing when to risk it and go all-in is a finnicky thing. A lot of it is luck in a format of 99 singleton cards. Pushing can just mean you do nothing for the rest of the game. I wonder if that kind of play pattern is even really worth it, or particularly fun if it fails.

Also, I question if this is much different from any other strategy that fails spectacularly. What if someone Sink into StuporSink into Stupors your Last March of the EntsLast March of the Ents or FogFogs your Craterhoof BehemothCraterhoof Behemoth? Is it much different? I guess it would depend on how deep a hole the non-deterministic player is willing to dig for a win.

Conclusion

I wanted to write this article to understand if I'm the villain. I like playing Heliod, the Radiant DawnHeliod, the Radiant Dawn, and Prosper, Tome-BoundProsper, Tome-Bound is one of my beloved decks. I do find these decks tend to make for unfun play patterns for more players. I am one player who enjoys a long turn, but there are three other players who have to sit through it. I have one friend who likes to wizard duel my long turn decks to mess up my sequencing, but I think he's an outlier.

I don't know if I'd say you shouldn't play this strategy, though. Like most playstyles, it depends on your group. You need to find people who enjoy or can at least tolerate the types of decks you enjoy playing.

At least that's what I think. Let me know what you think. I'm @strixhavendropout on everything.