Interaction between Sanguine Bond + Exquisite Blood + Exsanginate

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
What happens when Sanguine Bond + Exquisite Blood  are in play and Exsanguinate is played and X is say 5 ?
It almost seems like an infinite loop would take out target player (courtesy of Sanguine Bond), is that correct or am I seeing something wrong ?
it is an infinite loop (even with X=1) that will only end when all opponents are dead (or is otherwise interrupted)
Vizkopa Guildmage will make this combo Standard legal
proud member of the 2011 community team
it is an infinite loop (even with X=1) that will only end when all opponents are dead (or is otherwise interrupted)


Thats what it looked like but I sometimes miss a word or a comma or some other silly detail and get it all wrong

Thanks a ton....
Tha's correct.
The loop isn't infiinite, it ends when the players die.

If a Platinum Angel is involved it could be infinite and force a draw.
MTG Rules Advisor
Tha's correct.
The loop isn't infiinite, it ends when the players die.

If a Platinum Angel is involved it could be infinite and force a draw.


So when opponent A dies I just switch to target opponent B and the loop continues till he dies too?
correct
proud member of the 2011 community team
correct


Wow...this is going to cause some problems
Thanks guys..helpful as usual
Another quick question.

With the two enchantments (Sanguine Bond + Exquisite Blood ) in play would a card ability like Blood Seeker's trigger the loop ?
Reading the two cards it seems like if theyre both in play that If I gain even one life or an opponent loses one life that the loop would keep going between the two cards and take out opponent(s) life until they die.
yes, any of their lifeloss or any of your lifegain will kickstart the loop
proud member of the 2011 community team
yes, any of their lifeloss or any of your lifegain will kickstart the loop


Thanks.

wow...this seems to be a pretty abusable combo...and I thought the individual cards were awesome alone.
I saw the Blood Seeker and looking at it an opponent couldnt even bring a creature into play without losing the game.
Played alongside Anowon, the Ruin Sage it wouldnt be too hard to clear the table of enemy creatures and then keep any from coming into play.
The playgroup isnt going to be pleased about this
With the infinity loop thing...can I delare that it does 0 damage or do I have to let it  kill all the opponents?
none of the triggers are optional

you could remove one of the enchantments if you want to spare an opponent, but black doesn't have many options for that

another option to stop the loop without killing all opponents is one opponent having Shroud or Hexproof
proud member of the 2011 community team
none of the triggers are optional

you could remove one of the enchantments if you want to spare an opponent, but black doesn't have many options for that


I think I read that when there is in infinity loop that you have to declare a set number (5 trillion or whatever). We were wondering if you can declare 0 or even 1 damage and have it stop there....
that is only if you have a choice

for example with Splinter Twin and Deceiver Exarch you have to "manually" create all the copies and can decide however many you want.

with this loop there is no choice, there is no way to easily stop it without additional cards
proud member of the 2011 community team
One of my favorite loops. :D
I guess the issue is that we have always had a gentlemans agreement...ie 'house rules'...about not using infinite loops which we all feel cheapens the game.

The vampire deck I have has had Sanguine Bond in it since I made it, but the Exquisite Blood is a card Ive been dying to add, so I ordered a playset for it the other night. Then I got to looking at it and here we are.

Are there any house rule suggestions  from anyone to keep it under reasonable control?
I was thinking something maybe that it ends when the first opponent dies, possibly.
That would give our causal group another round to have a chance before I fired it off again on my next turn, or something.

Im ok with the infinity when Im playing seriously to win, but in casual games something a little less final would be fine.
How fast is it to get the combo off? What's the lowest turn you've had it going?
Why not just start a new game? That's what my play group does.
How fast is it to get the combo off? What's the lowest turn you've had it going?


Just playing around with the deck its looking like maybe 5 or 6 possibly. Obviously thats with even drawing both cards.
I have a sol ring, dark rituals, and some other artifacts for acceleration in the deck.
hmmm....maybe that would work. Drop the acceleration so I have to get  the cards cast with land. By the time I'd get both in play I might be knocked out of the game myself which would at least give the other guys a chance.

We had one player who used to use hideous loops when he played and it was partly a factor in our not playing much for a very long while. We just recently got back into playing and I'd hate to start down that path again.

For myself Im fine with just having both enchantments do what they do without the interaction between the two. Both are fantastic in a vampire theme deck which is why I wanted the EB card to add to the deck.
Short of houseruling this (which you can do in any way your group agrees), here are my suggestions:



  • Remove your acceleration. Cards like Sol Ring and Dark Ritual don't look it, but you've stumbled upon the truth that they are absurdly powerful. If the rest of your group isn't using the same stuff, you have a big advantage.

  • Play a format such as standard (to keep things fresh), modern (to allow your group to use most of the cards they own) or EDH (to reduce deck consistency and make loops like this almost a nonissue).

  • Simply acknowledge that your deck has reached its win condition and move to the next game. If your friends are mad about the infinite combo thing, be a good sport and swap out your deck for something else.

  • Play Sanguine Bond or Exquisite Blood, but not both. I prefer the former, as it turns lifegain into a win condition (which is basically what's going on anyway -- just turned down a few notches).

Almost all infinite combos use at least one enchantment and most that don't use some artifact instead. All you need to do is carry lots of Naturalize or such in your decks. No need for weird houseruling. I should know: my playgroup dubbed me «Mr Infinity» and they make sure I never get the chance to light up any of those combos.

Why not just start a new game? That's what my play group does.


Like I said, its just been a gentlemans agreement not to use infinite combos.
While we have used them a few times we all agree that it really cheapens the mechanics of the game (in our opinion, not that everyone should feel that way).

When Im playing to win I dont mind them so much myself, but in a casual setting no so much.
I love both of these cards and want them both in this vampire deck because, as is obvious, they are perfect for a vampire theme deck. I'd hate to have to remove one or the other because I just ordered the one set a couple days ago specifically for this deck.
Well, you can also opt to simply not putting both of them on the battlefield even if you could. Put in cards to cycle the other away, so that it's not a completely dead draw, or houserule it so, that you are given that option.
Short of houseruling this (which you can do in any way your group agrees), here are my suggestions:



  • Remove your acceleration. Cards like Sol Ring and Dark Ritual don't look it, but you've stumbled upon the truth that they are absurdly powerful. If the rest of your group isn't using the same stuff, you have a big advantage.




Definitely noticed right away why Sol Ring is restricted. If I get it in an opening hand depending on the deck itself its going to be a quick game. I think right now Im the only one of us who even owns a one. And Im not sure Ive seen even a dark ritual hit the table with the other players.


I use acceleration in all of my decks, which I think is giving me a huge advantage, so adding one more issue like these loops isnt going to make me get along with the other guys so well




  • Play a format such as standard (to keep things fresh), modern (to allow your group to use most of the cards they own) or EDH (to reduce deck consistency and make loops like this almost a nonissue).




We tried this about two years ago. It lasted one game session and no one wanted to try it again. We even had an 'ante' thing for a prize where everyone would buy an extra booster and toss it in to make it more interesting. I think we're just more 'vintage' players. Well, we all started in 95 or so...whatever year Fallen Empires came out.






  • Play Sanguine Bond or Exquisite Blood, but not both. I prefer the former, as it turns lifegain into a win condition (which is basically what's going on anyway -- just turned down a few notches).



This was what I came up with last night. Just hold back the one if the other is in play.
Either/or in play suits me just fine. Just hope I dont end up holding 3 copies of the one in hand half the game

Thanks for the input.
Well, you can also opt to simply not putting both of them on the battlefield even if you could. Put in cards to cycle the other away, so that it's not a completely dead draw, or houserule it so, that you are given that option.


I was thinking something along these lines last night. If I draw the second card maybe just drop it on the bottom of the deck and redraw.
I want to keep the deck together with both cards in case we play a real competition type session or even a team game where Im more interested in winning quick, but be able to tone it down for casual sessions which is about 90% of our games.


Almost all infinite combos use at least one enchantment and most that don't use some artifact instead. All you need to do is carry lots of Naturalize or such in your decks. No need for weird houseruling. I should know: my playgroup dubbed me «Mr Infinity» and they make sure I never get the chance to light up any of those combos.


This was a point I made to one of the guys last night. Its not like there arent a hundred cards out there to stop enchantments and if we're not playing cards to remove creatures/enchantments/artifacts then maybe we need to lose a game.
I put removal in pretty much all of my decks of some form or another.

Would it be possible that this so-called «gentlemen's agreement» is actually someone else's idea imposed upon you by those too lazy to carry removal?

Infinite combos have been with Magic since the old days. It also is a traditional part of fantasy lore: what good magical story doesn't have its own «spell gone out of control»?

What's next? To ban Day of Judgment because young brother wants to play goblins?

Why not just start a new game? That's what my play group does.


Like I said, its just been a gentlemans agreement not to use infinite combos.
While we have used them a few times we all agree that it really cheapens the mechanics of the game (in our opinion, not that everyone should feel that way).

When Im playing to win I dont mind them so much myself, but in a casual setting no so much.
I love both of these cards and want them both in this vampire deck because, as is obvious, they are perfect for a vampire theme deck. I'd hate to have to remove one or the other because I just ordered the one set a couple days ago specifically for this deck.

Our "house rule" for this is you can only play an "old" deck once a night.  You can playtest a "new"deck multiple times though.  Or, if you have a deck that loves to win with a combo, and I make a deck that I think breaks your combo, we play a set of 3 with those decks. 
Would it be possible that this so-called «gentlemen's agreement» is actually someone else's idea imposed upon you by those too lazy to carry removal?


No, not at all.
When the infinite loop thing became more common as more cards came out we had a few of them and really just all thought it was a cheezy way to win.
I bought a playset of Squirrel Nest when that set came out and at some point saw that it comboed with Earthcraft for infinite squirrel tokens and purposefully didnt buy any of those because I really just dont like infinite anything.
If memory serves I think I was the one who brought up the issue about agreeing not to play that way even though I usually have stuff in my deck to take out enchantments or permanents to begin with.
It was more that we love the mechanics of the game and agreed that we didnt want to play with infinite combos in our casual games.
I think if we ever started playing more seriously we'd all be fine with winning whatever way we could, but when we're all just playing for fun it seems to be a bit much.

I think Im going to just not play the second card if the one comes out and see if we can agree on a redraw or something. Both cards are fantastic in the deck so I'd like to keep them both in so at least one of the two comes out every hand if possible.
Squirrel Nest
Earthcraft.

Both are enchantments. I rest my case.

Infinite combos have been with Magic since the old days. It also is a traditional part of fantasy lore: what good magical story doesn't have its own «spell gone out of control»?

What's next? To ban Day of Judgment because young brother wants to play goblins?


No, we dont ban cards at all. In fact theyve suggested ignoring the restricted list as well, but Ive told them that I dont think thats a good idea because a card makes it to the restricted list for a good reason. Such as my Yawgmoth's Bargain deck is out of control usually by turn 4 and nearly impossible to stop even with removal and counterspells once turn 5 or 6 rolls around because Im drawing so many cards that I if something is countered or removed Im certain to have a couple more copies of that card or something worse in hand to play. If it had 4 copies of the Bargain itself it would be even worse. Theyve all seen first hand just how horrible Necrologia and Yawgmoth's Bargain can be when you find a way to abuse them. So I think sticking to the restricted list helps keep things in check a little more.

But we dont ban anything...although Im sure they might want to ban Arbiter of Knollridge if we ever have a repeat of a game where I abused the hell out of it a few weeks ago
Our "house rule" for this is you can only play an "old" deck once a night.  You can playtest a "new"deck multiple times though.  Or, if you have a deck that loves to win with a combo, and I make a deck that I think breaks your combo, we play a set of 3 with those decks. 


we're all more just play whatever you want whenever you want.
I wish we would start playing decks more than once and also play less group games and more duels, but you get what you get, I guess...
We ran into the same issue in my Playgroup a year ago. I tried out grimoire of the dead with blasphemous act and slaughtered them. Next game they teamed up on me quickly. Next week they carried naturalize. Combos are good, they make the game fun. Whatever your Playgroup wants to do is fine, but I think countering your opponents' combos is all part of the metagame.
Cannot be relied upon^
We ran into the same issue in my Playgroup a year ago. I tried out grimoire of the dead with blasphemous act and slaughtered them. Next game they teamed up on me quickly. Next week they carried naturalize. Combos are good, they make the game fun. Whatever your Playgroup wants to do is fine, but I think countering your opponents' combos is all part of the metagame.


We had to deal with the gang **** thing years back. Three players attacking one player all in one turn was a bit unfair, so we decided when a player got attacked they got 'the chip'. Anyone with the chip couldnt be attacked, so it meant that if you wanted to attack that player again a different player would have to be attacked so they got the chip.
It was very effective at making the mechanics of the game work with a little more fairness than having all players trying to take one player out all in a single turn. I mean, if one player has a good deck and its kicking butt they deserve to have a chance of having it do its thing. No deck can take on 3-5 players normally.
And personally I dont like more than 3 players in a game.
3 adds a little flavor without making it so that a win is pretty much just political rather than mechanical.
I hate the politics of group games. If I wanted to play Illuminati Id buy that game again
Might I suggest an unofficial game type called pentagram?

It's a five player game where your goal is to defeat the two players across from you. That makes your neighbors your teammates, but a piece of their win condition is to kill each other. Pentagram has some level of politics, but for the most part you just try to make your deck work.

The reason I think it will work for your playgroup is because it has a built-in mechanic to prevent teaming up on one player. If your opponents try to work together to kill you, they'll soon find themselves in a 3 against 2 position as your neighbors do what they can to keep you from dying.
We had to deal with the gang **** thing years back. Three players attacking one player all in one turn was a bit unfair

I thought you guys were gentlemen...

...so we decided when a player got attacked they got 'the chip'. Anyone with the chip couldnt be attacked, so it meant that if you wanted to attack that player again a different player would have to be attacked so they got the chip. It was very effective at making the mechanics of the game work with a little more fairness than having all players trying to take one player out all in a single turn. I mean, if one player has a good deck and its kicking butt they deserve to have a chance of having it do its thing...

So, you created 'the chip' to prevent gang ****, but gang **** being the perfect response against infinity combos, you had to create yet another houserule to forbid infinity combos. Not unlike our gouvernments creating absurd prohibition laws and then having to create entire task forces to fight bootleggers... and then having to create unjust income revenue laws to finance those task forces... and then having to create yet more task forces to fight tax evasion...

I wish we would start playing decks more than once and also play less group games and more duels, but you get what you get, I guess...

Split the group! 7 players can split 2/2/3. Games also go faster that way.

we're all more just play whatever you want whenever you want.


Like I said, its just been a gentlemans agreement not to use infinite combos.

Please pick one. For sanity's sake.

Might I suggest an unofficial game type called pentagram?

It's a five player game where your goal is to defeat the two players across from you. That makes your neighbors your teammates, but a piece of their win condition is to kill each other. Pentagram has some level of politics, but for the most part you just try to make your deck work.

The reason I think it will work for your playgroup is because it has a built-in mechanic to prevent teaming up on one player. If your opponents try to work together to kill you, they'll soon find themselves in a 3 against 2 position as your neighbors do what they can to keep you from dying.


Actually to me this sounds fantastic.
Ive tried to get them to give the multiplayer variants a try, such as attacking left or right and we've all loved team games where we just share a life score, but it doesnt ever stick for long.
I'll definitely give it a try.
we're all more just play whatever you want whenever you want.


Like I said, its just been a gentlemans agreement not to use infinite combos.

Please pick one. For sanity's sake.


Play whatever cards you own...no limits except the restricted lists....ie following the rules, with an added agreement of not playing infinite combos which ALL of us find distasteful in casual, so its been fine for the most part.
We did have one player who loved infinite whatever, but he doesnt play in the group anymore so we've all just gone back to the way things were before.