We search for effective axions with super-Planckian decay constants in type IIB string models. We argue that such axions can be realised as long winding trajectories in complex-structure moduli space by an appropriate flux choice. Our main findings are: The simplest models with aligned winding in a 2-axion field space fail due to a general no-go theorem. However, equally simple models with misaligned winding, where the effective axion is not close to any of the fundamental axions, appear to work to the best of our present understanding. These models have large decay constants but no large monotonic regions in the potential, making them unsuitable for large-field inflation. We also show that our no-go theorem can be avoided by aligning three or more axions. We argue that, contrary to misaligned models, such models can have both large decay constants and large monotonic regions in the potential. Our results may be used to argue against the refined Swampland Distance Conjecture and strong forms of the axionic Weak Gravity Conjecture. It becomes apparent, however, that realising inflation is by far harder than just producing a light field with large periodicity.1 This can be viewed as the Higgsing of several 0-forms by (−1)-forms [44][45][46], such that a single 0-form with large f survives. Similarly, several 1-forms can be Higgsed by 0-forms to challenge the WGC for vector fields [47]. Thus, establishing the original proposal of [10] would be important to evaluate how much trust one can put in the subsequent more general claim of [47]. 2 Shift-symmetric complex-structure moduli have been considered in the context of inflation before, e.g., as complex-structure moduli of 4-folds or D7-brane moduli [52][53][54][55][56][57][58] as well as in the 3-fold case [59,60]. 3 See, however, [50, 51] for a critical discussion of large field ranges in type IIB models at the conifold point. For very recent optimistic analyses in a rather different approach see [62,63].4 This is true modulo the small-action loophole pointed out in [13] (see also [64]). 5 Another reason why, despite its name, the Strong WGC is less strong than the Smallest Charge WGC is that its 1-form version does not have any implications for the spectrum of the low-energy EFT. In particular, if only the Strong WGC holds, the inequality m qg [3] can be satisfied by states with arbitrarily large charges and, hence, arbitrarily large masses. 6 See also the less restrictive Tower WGC [66], where the WGC is also satisfied by a large number of states but they do not necessarily occupy a sub-lattice in charge space.