Laboratory ManiacLaboratory Maniac | Art by Jason Felix

The Commander Format Panel (CFP) describes 2-Card Combos (TCCs) as two cards that can outright end the game, lock out opponents from playing the game, or are simply two cards that can go infinite. The intention is to bar lower Brackets from clear warping experiences like Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle or Underworld BreachUnderworld Breach.

In addition to Bracket expectations, Game Changers, Chaining Extra Turns, and Mass Land Denial, TCCs are aimed to better quantify just how much power is feasible in the lower Brackets. This way the Game Changer list doesn't need to include hundreds of cards and can instead focus on only the most egregious of cards and exploits.

But what makes something a TCC? Should all TCCs be treated equally? What about non-infinite 2-card combos?

We can touch upon a lot of nuances found in the TCC sub category, so let's start by defining out terms before moving on.

What Do TCCs Look Like?

TCCs include any two cards that can end the game, lock players out, or go infinite. These combos can range from anything where two cards can kill three opponents in the same turn, such as Scourge of the SkyclavesScourge of the Skyclaves and Wound ReflectionWound Reflection, preventing your opponents from playing the game through locks like Lavinia, Azorius RenegadeLavinia, Azorius Renegade and Knowledge PoolKnowledge Pool, or generating infinite instances of resources, damage, card draw, etc.

Generally, TCCs involve two cards that disproportionally push a game far into one player's favor while ending the game sooner than the pod anticipated. While decks ought not to be built to end a game at these designated times per se, Brackets state that players should expect Bracket 1-3 games to end at turns nine, eight, and six, respectively.

TCCs most often shatter player expectations by ending a game much sooner than the anticipated turn count Brackets suggest.

Additionally, it's not enough for players to sandbag their TCCs until the suggested turn limit and win the game unannounced. Lower Bracket games are meant to be played gradually with players telegraphing their advantages and game plans. This is to say that throwing down your Niv-Mizzet, ParunNiv-Mizzet, Parun and Niv-Mizzet, VisionaryNiv-Mizzet, Visionary on turn nine in your Bracket 2 Arjun, the Shifting FlameArjun, the Shifting Flame deck isn't something your opponents should naturally expect.

The aforementioned TCCs are clear examples of two cards exploiting one another sufficiently to warp a game too dramatically for a lower Bracket experience. Brackets 1-3 aim to exclude interactions that end a game prematurely, out of nowhere, or are deemed too "unfun."

However, not all TCCs are equal. While some can wholly end a game on their own in a vacuum, what are we to do about TCCs that require additional steps, if not additional cards?

Sometimes, TCCs Aren’t Just Two Cards

A good example to start with is the popular Exquisite BloodExquisite Blood and Sanguine BondSanguine Bond combo. With just two cards, the next instance of an opponent losing life or the combo's controller gaining life will end the game effectively immediately. And yet, despite the combo's notoriety, the two cards on their own don't actively contribute to ending a game.

The combo isn't complete until someone triggers either enchantment. Until then, there's still a Bracket 1-3 game to be had as long as the conditions aren't met.

I'll argue that this is still a TCC in spirit despite this due to the prerequisites being so simple to accomplish, as I'm sure many would also agree. The takeaway is that there seems to be the possibility of a TCC requiring sufficient prerequisites as to allow a TCC into Brackets 1-3 (specifically for non-thematic reasons in Bracket 1).

Take for example Hellkite ChargerHellkite Charger. Let's assume you had a source like Bear UmbraBear Umbra that could repeatedly generate the necessary to indefinitely activate the Charger's triggered ability and gain an indefinite number of combats. In this case, your TCC requires around an additional seven lands to be considered a combo at all.

The same thing happens if we replace Bear Umbra with a creature like Old GnawboneOld Gnawbone, as now a minimum of seven damage and seven usable Treasures are required. One Blind ObedienceBlind Obedience or Karn, the Great CreatorKarn, the Great Creator stops this combo in its tracks.

An important factor to note is that this combo isn't technically an infinite combo in either case as the TCC is limited by your opponents' life totals and whether or not their battlefields - whether through stax pieces previously mentioned or a wall of blockers - can either prevent or enable infinite combats.

Technically speaking, it's possible for this TCC to not be infinite and to not end the game in a single turn, thus skirting the conditions to be categorized a TCC. Despite this, I'll agree that this still should be considered a TCC and thus excluded from lower Bracket games.

More examples can be found, but eventually we'll discover some combo that requires an amount of prerequisites that are so demanding or so numerous that they would water the combo down to the lower Brackets' power level.

Take Scute SwarmScute Swarm, for example. The only thing really limiting these ecological terrorists are how many lands you can play in a single turn.

Theoretically, you could construct a TCC with Kodama of the East TreeKodama of the East Tree and the Swarm with the prerequisite that you play a bounce land like Simic Growth ChamberSimic Growth Chamber as your land for turn with the two creatures under your control, then returning the Chamber to your hand before Kodama's triggered ability resolves from the Swarm creating a token.

With the additional prerequisite of being able to grant your Swarm haste, perhaps through a Concordant CrossroadsConcordant Crossroads, you're able to end the game with what we'll consider a TCC* on turn six, a fairly reasonable expectation for Bracket 3.

Prerequisites Are to TCCs as Brackets Are to Commander

We've previously talked about playing combos in the lower Brackets, but what we didn't focus on in that discussion was whether TCCs can also fit into lower Bracket experiences. I believe that we can use a combo's prerequisites as a means to limit a combo's warping effect similar to how Brackets are used to tailor the desired Commander experience between a pod.

What if, in order to create a TCC* that can end the game on the spot with an infinite amount of mana, we needed seventeen mana to do so. Let's look at Cogwork AssemblerCogwork Assembler and Powerstone ShardPowerstone Shard. In order for the Shard to tap for seven mana and thus allow us to infinitely activate the Assembler and generate infinite copies of any artifact creature with haste + infinite , we'll need to create six copies of the Shard to do so.

If we wanted to do so all at once, we'd need access to seventeen mana before copying Powerstone Shard. With seventeen mana, I believe that most players will anticipate game-ending moves to be made. Very little is unachievable with seventeen mana.

Now, what if we had the means of gradually producing permanent copies of Powerstone Shard over multiple turns, perhaps with Mechanized ProductionMechanized Production, only this time we resolve Cogwork Assembler the turn we intend to win? Wouldn't this be sandbagging and go against telegraphing our plays, thus "wining out of nowhere" and going against lower Bracket intentions?

I'd argue that it was telegraphed. We've proven to be able to generate permanent copies of whatever artifact we please and have done so over multiple turns, allowing our opponents many opportunities to stop us from doing so. If they can't win against an opponent generating, say, one additional Metalwork ColossusMetalwork Colossus a turn, that's not on us.

They've been more than able to deal with our source of generating Powerstone Shard copies up to this point, and arguably should have by now. Especially if our source of copying is Mechanized Production, a very telegraphed victory condition.

This is but one example. Innumerable instances of TCCs requiring an already game-winning amount of influence can be presented and arguably justified to be allowed into the lower Brackets.

Ask Not if You Can, but if You Should

The one argument that stands against a TCC* in lower Brackets is the hard rule that players who don't want to engage with TCCs in any form should have the opportunity to do so. This is a foundational tenet of the Brackets that players ought to have a space safe from the saltier or grindier sides of Commander.

This safe space must remain. Despite the arguments we've discussed thus far, if someone remains apprehensive to playing with or against TCCs in any form, they ought to be granted such an environment that fosters this experience.

As is always the case, this remains a Rule Zero discussion. Does your group mind if your Jarad, Golgari Lich LordJarad, Golgari Lich Lord is capable of nuking the table with an attacking Jumbo CactuarJumbo Cactuar? Is everyone fine with expecting your Kediss, Emberclaw FamiliarKediss, Emberclaw Familiar partner deck to be capable of infecting everyone with instances like Tainted StrikeTainted Strike?

We can argue that TCCs and TCCs* ought to be accessible in all Brackets to an extent, but at the end of the day this discussion must be shared with our three opponents. The CFP may govern Commander with our best interests in mind, but they only offer guidance and leave it to us to cultivate our preferred play experiences.

But what do you think? How do you feel about playing with prerequisite-heavy-TCCs in lower Brackets? What are your thoughts on TCCs expanding beyond just two cards? Do you think this interpretation of TCCs can promote more enjoyable games?

I hope this article is helpful in exploring what TCCs can look like and how to play them differently. Find me on BlueSky at @ajwicker4.bsky.social, I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are.

Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!