Am I the Bolas? - Bracket 3 "Fun" Decks

June 11, 2025

Rocco, Street ChefRocco, Street Chef | Art by Jack Hughes

Hello, and welcome to Am I the Bolas?

This column is for all of you out there who have ever played some Magic and wondered if you were the bad guy. I'm here to take in your story with all of its nuances so I can bring some clarity to all those asking, "Am I the Bolas?"

I'm ready to hear you out and offer advice. All you have to do is email [email protected] with your story, a pseudonym you want to use, and of course, only include details you don't mind in the column! You might see your story below one day. You might even hear it on the podcast. Which podcast?

THIS PODCAST!

I'm Mike Carrozza, aka Mark Carbonza, and I have no idea who this lil guy is, but I can't stop saying his name over and over and over again.

Papalymo Totolymo

Papalymo Totolymo! Papalymo Totolymo! Papalymo Totolymo!!!

This week, why it's important to have a rule zero chat.

(Post edited for brevity, clarity, and then some.)

SUBMISSION

Hi Mary Carbonara,

Got a story where I'm trying to determine whether I broke social rules or if someone spilled the salt shaker on his playmat.

I play mostly on Spelltable recently and found myself in a lobby titled "Bracket 3 Fun Decks". I pull out my Rocco, Street ChefRocco, Street Chef deck before the other players take out Deadpool, Trading CardDeadpool, Trading Card, Edgar MarkovEdgar Markov, and Kambal, Consul of AllocationKambal, Consul of Allocation. There was not much of a pre-game discussion and "fun decks" is subjective, but a stax deck, a stax deck, and Eminence reads relatively powerful in my mind.

Deadpool, Trading Card
Edgar Markov
Kambal, Consul of Allocation

My Rocco deck has various win lines, but it does have two combo packages: one centered around All Will Be OneAll Will Be One and The Red TerrorThe Red Terror-type effects and the other around Rosie Cotton of South LaneRosie Cotton of South Lane and Scurry OakScurry Oak effects. Notably, neither of these combos are two-card combos, it needs another piece to end the game, and I run a single tutor in the deck: Rocco, Cabaretti CatererRocco, Cabaretti Caterer for flavor reasons (pun extremely intended). To me, this makes the combos fair game in a Bracket 3 game. But this was not discussed before mulligans.

The game starts off well enough. An early Birds of ParadiseBirds of Paradise gives me a turn-two commander, and every player benefits from it on that turn rotation. By the next turn though, Deadpool comes out and turns off my Rocco, but gives everyone another impulse draw. A turn or so after that, I stick Rosie Cotton on the field and have my one and only tutor on an impulse draw with only a single turn to cast it. I do some quick maths, then move to my turn.

My draw for turn is Peregrin TookPeregrin Took. Given my mana situation, I am able to play Rocco, Cabaretti CatererRocco, Cabaretti Caterer, tutor Scurry OakScurry Oak to the field, play Peregrin TookPeregrin Took, which starts the loop:

Scurry OakScurry Oak's evolve trigger puts a counter on it, making a Squirrel
The Squirrel triggers Peregrin TookPeregrin Took, making a Food
Each token triggers Rosie Cotton to put a counter on Scurry OakScurry Oak
Rinse and repeat

I demonstrate the loop to the table, signaling points to interact, of which the table has none. Deadpool player asks rather assertively whether there is a "may" on any of the triggers. I begin to explain that no, but I can choose to put the counters elsewhere, but I get interrupted by him again before I can finish, asking the same question. I shorten my explanation and end the loop, ending with 69,420,000,000 Foods and Squirrels. I demonstrate drawing most of my deck with Peregrin TookPeregrin Took with a rather clear line in mind.

Before I can make a play though, the Deadpool player again interrupts saying "Okay I scoop. I'm not about to wait here for ten minutes while you figure out what your lines are." Before I can reply, he alt+F4s, as does the Edgar player. Kambal sticks it out while I ramp out Night of the Sweets' RevengeNight of the Sweets' Revenge, buff my board and swing out.

The rage quitting here is what has me questioning my Bolas status. I can't determine whether the reaction was due to losing, or an unexpected combo, or because he really thought I would take too long to round out the game. So my question is: Am I the Bolas for playing a three-card combo in Bracket 3 without discussing it beforehand? And do the decks I'm playing against justify me playing more cutthroat than I might if I was against more "socially fun" decks?

Thanks for your time,

BluePaint

Scurry Oak

VERDICT

Thank you for writing and asking me to weigh in on your story. As I mention every week, if folks don't write to me, there's no column, so if you, the reader, want to send me a story, whether it's your own or one from Reddit or a friend's, please send it to [email protected] and I'll get to it here.

I like this one so much I might bring it on the podcast this week.

For simplicity's sake, here's the most recent bracket breakdown we got in April 2025 from Gavin.

Bracket 3 states that it's the Upgraded bracket with the following expectation:

"Decks are thoughtfully designed, full of synergistic or strong cards. Games could end out of nowhere with powerful spells and late-game combos." It forbids mass land denial and chaining extra turns while allowing specifically late-game two-card infinite combos. Notably, the stipulation of "few tutors" disappears in Bracket 3, which we assume means that tutors are good to go in the bracket as long as they aren't Game Changers that surpass the amount you're allowed to have to remain in this bracket. Up to three Game Changers are allowed, but this isn't important here.

Suffice it to say, there's an expectation that you'll be playing with some power and you can expect some games to end abruptly if a deck gets there. If you label games as Bracket 3, these are the things we've come to agree upon. If there's anything that you disagree with in the Bracket 3 breakdown, it should be mentioned in a rule zero discussion. While I don't like tutors for myself, I don't impose that rule on others, so I don't bring it up. However, two-card infinite combos are a bummer no matter when the game comes together. At least three pieces and even then, I'd rather die to a seven-piece combo I've never seen before - and that's just a takeout order! BADUM TSS!

I can see where the others are coming from in the sense that the tutor got the final piece to a combo that essentially wins you the game, but that doesn't take into account the fact that you had to draw Peregrin TookPeregrin Took, too. This is now a three-card combo that allows you to draw into a win pretty effectively. There are interaction points, but I'll forgive Bracket 3 for not packing the instant-speed board wipe heat.

There's a bit of a "technically it's Bracket 3" thing happening here where, while it's not the late-game per se, considering the story might take place at turn four or five, it's not a two-card combo, it's a three-card combo. It's still in early stages of the game, but it meets the requirement of not being a two-card combo.

It still ended the game sooner than the others expected, but technically falls within Bracket 3. I think considering the information you had, plus, let's face it, a Kambal and Edgar are at the table along with a new commander that threatens to turn your own commander off, you played within the rules. The hesitance or reluctance to have a rule zero discussion is what led to this and should be a learning moment for the Edgar and Deadpool players. Have the conversation.

It's also totally fair to not want to play with someone who plays combos with so few pieces that go off so early. The way they went about it was dumb and sad, really. You'd figure the Deadpool player (who must've gotten it hot off the presses considering when this submission was made) would find a way to have a laugh about it. This is something to bring up in the rule zero conversation and if that's not been discussed then leaving abruptly, while well within your right, wouldn't make me want to play with you again either. The assumption that you didn't know what you were digging for after explaining the combo clearly is also bananas to me. Why wouldn't you stick around and hear someone out or say "okay, I scoop, but for the next one, how about no infinite combos until later in the game"? It seems so petty and (I've been trying to avoid this word) childish to storm off without hearing about what you're looking for and saying you expect a ten-minute wheel-spinning turn. I see somebody comboing out like that, I'll ask if they know what they're looking for and scoop when they say it's coming.

I think the other thing this highlights is that there's a yearning for the "my deck is a seven" crowd to find a space that lets them build at Bracket 3, but play at Bracket 2 - longer games with no abrupt endings, but they can still use Jeska's WillJeska's Will.

You're not the Bolas. I will encourage you to speak up and insist on the rule zero chat and to bring up stuff like this in the future so everybody is clear. That said, this is within the bracket rules and seems like it would have been a hurdle game at worst at most tables - a game you have where you find out that maybe you're not all on the same page but now it's time to chat and get on the same page, pull out new decks and get another going.

Thanks again for writing in!

Rocco, Street Chef|mat|94

EDHREC Code of Conduct

Your opinions are welcome. We love hearing what you think about Magic! We ask that you are always respectful when commenting. Please keep in mind how your comments could be interpreted by others. Personal attacks on our writers or other commenters will not be tolerated. Your comments may be removed if your language could be interpreted as aggressive or disrespectful. You may also be banned from writing further comments.